DECISIONS  AND  OPINIONS 


OF  THE 


Railroad   and    Warehouse 
Commission 


OF  THE 


STATE  OF  ILLINOIS 


Volume  II 


AND 


Various  Opinions  of  the  Attorney  General  Relating 

to    Matters    in    this    Department 

1900  to   1907. 


Compiled    by 

WILLIAM   KILPATRICK, 

Secretary. 


SPRINGFIELD,  ILLINOIS 
PHILLIPS  BROS.,  STATE  PRINTERS. 

1908 


A;  '.:•!:.*••.*..:.• :  >. 

. 


,  .  . 


,  ••    *  »  J    J  «  •   •   - 

.--..-  J      -.-.»-' 

.     ......  .„»,,  )  ,1      .  •- 

'    •'.;    c  :    '          •    «'V    '       ! 
,       1  „    V  , 

•     •  *  • .  -J»u     »,    *»  •     "3 

....          ,.       -   -     o^,  ' 


ORDERS  AND  OPINIONS. 


.  The   following   orders    and   opinions   have   been    rendered   by    the 
Commission : 

BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 


Illinois  Transfer  Railroad  Company, 

vs. 
33    -  •  • 

Louisville,  Evansville  &  St.  Louis  Consolidated  Railroad  Company. 

3  '  '  ' 

Petition  to  Cross  at  Grade,  Etc.,  at  Webber  Street  in  Winstanley  Park,  St. 

Clair  County,  Illinois. 

APPEARANCES : 

,, ,   . 

For  Petitioner,  J.  M.  HAMILL. 
For  Respondent,  W.  L.  TAYLOR,  J.  D.  WELLMAN,  E.  C.  KRAMER. 

A.V 

Opinion  by  LINDLY,  Chairman. 

This  is  a  petition  filed  on  behalf  of  the  Illinois  Transfer  Railroad  company 
to  cross  the  tracks  of  the  Louisville,  Evansville  &  St.  Louis  Consolidated 
Railroad  company  in  Winstanley  Park,  a  short  distance  east  of  the  city 
limits  of  East  St.  Louis  in  St.  Clair  county,  111. 

The  petition  was  filed  Nov.  15,  1899. 

The  hearing  of  this  petition  was  set  for  Tuesday,  Dec.  19,  1899,  when  it 
was  continued  on  motion  of  the  respondent  until  Friday,  Jan.  12,  1900,  at 
which  time  the  case  was  partially  heard,  and  continued  by  agreement  to 
Friday,  Jan.  26,  1900,  at  which  time  the  trial  was  concluded. 

The  evidence  in  this  case  shows  that  the  proposed  li^e  of  the  petitioner 
would  cross  the  main  track  and  side  track  of  the  Louisville,  Evansville  &  St. 
Louis  Consolidated  railroad  at  the  place  where  the  main  track  of  the  Louis- 
ville, Evansville  &  St.  Louis  Consolidated  railroad  is  located  upon  Survey 
One  Hundred  Twenty-six  (126)  of  the  common  fields  of  Cahokia,  in  the 
village  of  Winstanley  Park,  in  St.  Cl-nr  county,  Illinois;  the  center  lines  ot* 
the  two  proposed  tracks  of  the  said  Illinois  Transfer  Railroad  to  be  laid 
across  the  main  track  and  side  track  of  the  Louisville,  Evansville  &  St.  Louis 
Consolidated  railroad  at  grade,  being  respectively  six  and  one-half  (61/*.)  feet 
on  each  side  of  the  northeasterly  prolongation  of  the  center  line  of  Pueblo 
street,  as  established  through  the  sub-division  of  Denverside,  in  Centerville. 
Station  township,  St.  Clair  county,  Illinois,  (as  said  street  is  shown  and  des- 


ignated  in  Flat  Book  F,  page  40  of  the  records  of  St.  Clair  county,  Illinois), 
if  said  Pueblo  street  wera  extended  across  the  right  of  way  of  the  said  Louis- 
ville, Evansville  &  St.  Louis  Consolidated  railroad.  The  description  of  said 
proposed  crossing  being  more"  pa)  ticularly  described  on  a  certain  plat  intro- 
duced in  evidence  jnarked  Exhibit  "A,"  which  plat  is  made  a  part  of  this 
order. 

The  evidence'  further  shows  that  the  Illinois  Transfer  Railroad  company  is 
a  railroad  corporation,  incorporated  and  organized  under  the  laws  of  the 
State  of  Illinois  for  the  purpose  of  building,  maintaining  and  operating  a  belt 
or  connecting  railway,  with  a  single  or  double  track  to  connect  with  all  of 
the  railroads  running  from  the  east,  north  or  south  through  Madison  or  St. 
Clair  counties,  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  as  described  in  said  petition. 

It  further  appears  from  the  evidence  in  this  case  that  the  said  Illinois 
Transfer  Railroad  company  will  cross  with  their  tracks  the  tracks  of  the 
Vandalia  railroad,  the  Baltimore  &  Ohio  Southwestern  railroad,  the  St.  Louis 
&  O'Fallon  railroad  and  the  Louisville  &  Nashville  railroad. 

It  further  appears  from  the  testimony  that  the  said  Illinois  Transfer  Rail- 
road company  has  by  agreement  with  the  various  roads  aforesaid  obtained 
the  written  consent  of  said  roads  to  cross  the  tracks  of  the  same  at  grade  and 
make  proper  connections  with  the  main  tracks  of  said  roads  for  the  purpose 
of  operating  a  belt  railroad. 

It  is  contended  by  respondent  that  another  corporation  pretending  to  be 
incorporated  and  organized  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Illinois  for  the 
purpose  of  building  a  track  upon  the  route  described  in  said  petition  and 
prior  to  the  time  of  the  incorporation  of  the  Illinois  Transfer  Railroad  com- 
pany had  already  laid  down  a  single  track  on  part  of  the  route  described  and 
set  forth  in  petitioner's  petition. 

It  appears  from  the  testimony  in  this  case  that  prior  to  the  incorporation 
of  the  said  Illinois  Transfer  Railroad  company,  that  there  was  incorporated 
a  railroad  company  under  the  name  of  the  East  St.  Louis  Belt  Railroad  com- 
pany, and  that  they  had  acquired  certain  right  of  way  and  constructed  a  por- 
tion of  the  track  on  the  right  of  way  acquired  under  this  title.  It  further 
appears  that  said  railroad  had  not  been  completed  or  operated  by  the  said 
East  St.  Louis  Belt  Railroad  company,  but  had  been  partially  graded  and 
constructed. 

It  appears  from;  the  testimony  that  the  said  Illinois  Transfer  Railroad  com- 
pany, after  its  said  incorporation,  acquired  all  the  rights,  franchises  and 
property  of  the  said  East  St.  Louis  Belt  Railroad  company,  and  was  at  the 
time  of  the  filing  of  the  petition  in  this  case,  the  sole  owner  of  the  right  of 
way,  franchises  and  property  of  the  said  East  St.  Louis  Belt  Railroad  com- 
pany, and  had  full  right  to  file  the  petition  herein;  and  the  contention  of 
respondent  that  this  was  the  acquiring  or  consolidation  of  parallel  lines  of 
railroad  as  set  forth  in  the  statutes  of  the  State  of  Illinois  is  not  supported 
either  by  the  testimony  or  under  the  law,  for  it  simply  amounted  to  acquiring 
by  the  Illinois  Transfer  Railroad  company  of  the  property  and  franchises  of 
the  East  St.  Louis  Belt  railroad,  which  at  the  time  of  such  acquirement  was 
neither  constructed  nor  in  operation,  and  the  rule  as  to  the  parallel  lines  of 
railroads,  contended  for  by  respondent,  has  no  application  whatever  under 
the  facts  in  this  case;  and  the  right  of  the  Illinois  Transfer  Railroad  com- 
pany to  acquire  from  the  East  St.  Louis  Belt  Railroad  company  their  right 
of  way,  franchises,  etc.,  can  not  be  denied  under  the  law. 

It  further  appears  from  the  testimony  that  the  original  right  of  way  of  the 
said  Louisville,  Evansville  &  St.  Louis  Consolidated  Railroad  company  at  the 
point  of  the  proposed  crossing  is  one  hundred  and  ten  (110)  feet  wide.  It  is 
only  shown  upon  the  map  introduced  in  evidence  to  be  one  hundred  (100)  feet 
wide,  but  according  to  the  evidence  it  appears  to  be  one  hundred  and  ten 
(110)  feet  wide  at  that  point.  Under  the  statute  providing  for  the  crossing 
of  one  railroad  with  another,  it  is  provided  under  "An  Act  in  relation  to  the 
crossing  of  one  railroad  by  another,  and  to  prevent  danger  to  life  and  to 
property  from  grade  crossings,"  approved  May  27,  1889;  in  force  July  1, 
1889,  Section  205:  "That  hereafter  any  railroad  company  desiring  to  cross 
with  its  tracks  the  main  line  of  another  railroad  company,  shall  construct  the 


crossing  in  such  manner  and  at  such  place  as  will  not  necessarily  impede  or 
endanger  the  travel  or  transportation  upon  the  railway  crossed;  if  in  any 
case  objection  be  made  to  the  place  or  mode  of  crossing  proposed  by  the  com- 
pany desiring  the  same,  either  party  may  apply  to  the  Board  of  Railroad  and 
Warehouse  Commissioners,  and  it  shall  be  their  duty  to  view  the  ground,  and 
give  all  parties  interested  an  opportunity  to  be  heard;  after  full  investigation 
and  with  due  regard  to  safety  of  life  and  property,  said  board  shall  give  a 
decision  prescribing  the  place  where  and  the  manner  in  which  said  crossing 
shall  be  made,  but  in  all  cases  the  compensation  to  be  paid  for  property  actu- 
ally required  for  the  crossing,  and  all  damages  resulting  therefrom,  shall  be 
determined  in  the  manner  provided  by  law  in  case  the  parties  fail  to  agree." 

It  appears  from  the  evidence  in  this  case  that  in  March,  1899,  under  certain 
proceedings  in  the  United  States  Circuit  Court,  had  'by  the  receiver  of  the 
said  respondent  railroad  company,  he  was  authorized  to  purchase  a  certain 
strip  of  ground  two  hundred  (200)  feet  wide  part  of  the  distance  and  two 
hundred  and  eighty  (280)  feet  wide  at  another  portion,  being  at  the  point  in 
question,  and  three  hundred  (300)  feet  at  another  point,  with  a  total  length 
of  five  thousand  six  hundred  and  twenty-eight  (5,628)  feet  lying  along  the 
side  of  and  adjacert  to  the  right  of  way  of  the  main  Una  of  said  Louisville, 
Evansville  &  St.  Louis  Consolidated  Railroad  company  at  the  point  of  the 
proposed  crossing,  which  said  right  of  way  of  said  main  line  at  the  point  of 
said  proposed  crossing  is  one  hundred  and  ten  (110)  feet,  making  a  total 
width  at  said  proposed  point  of  crossing  of  three  hundred  and  ninety  (390) 
feet. 

At  the  time  the  petition  in  this  case  was  filed  and  at  the  time  the  crossing 
was  viewed  by  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  three  (3)  or  more 
certain  tracks  had  been  laid  upon  ties,  without  any  grading  or  surfacing  of 
the  same,  upon  the  strip  of  ground  so  purchased  as  aforesaid,  which  tracks 
are  totally  disconnected  at  either  end  with  the  main  or  side  track  of  the  said 
Louisville,  Evansville  &  St.  Louis  Consolidated  Railroad  at  the  point  of  said 
crossing,  or  at  any  point  whatever.  It  is  insisted  that  it  is  the  intention. of 
the  respondent  railroad  company  to  use  the  strip  of  ground  so  purchased  for 
yard  purposes,  and  that,  in  passing  upon  the  question  of  the  crossing  of  the 
tracks  of  the  Illinois  Transfer  Railroad  company  over  the  tracks  of  the 
respondent  railroad  company,  that  the  commission  should  take  into  considera- 
tion said  tracks  so  laid  upon  said  strip  of  ground,  and  also  the  additional 
fact  that  it  is  intended  to  use  said  strip  of  ground  and  said  tracks  so  laid 
upon  said  strip  of  ground  for  yard  purposes. 

The  inquiry  of  the  commission  under  the  statute  is  limited  to  the  crossing 
of  the  main  line  of  one  railroad  company  wHh  another,  and  does  not  extend 
beyond  the  original  right  of  way  or  main  track  and  connecting  tracks  at  the 
time  said  petition  was  filed.  The  commission  cannot  enter  into  the  field  of 
the  probable  intention  of  respondent  as  to  the  use  they  desire  or  propose  to 
make  of  the  strip  of  ground  in  question.  The  damages  arising  to  the  respond- 
ent railroad  company  from  the  crossing  of  the  main  track  and  side  track,  as 
well  as  the  crossing  of  the  other  tracks  on  the  strip  of  ground  in  question, 
are  questions  that  will  have  to  be  settled  under  the  Eminent  Domain  Act, 
which  this  commission  cannot  consider.  Under  this  statute  the  commission 
is  only  to  determine  the  place  and  mode  of  crossing,  and  all  questions  of  dam- 
ages are  to  be  determined  under  proper  condemnation  proceedings.  It  is  no 
doubt  true,  that  if  the  respondent  railroad  company  was  operating  a  yard  at 
the  point  in  question,  that  the  commission  would  consider  the  number  of 
tracks  and  yard  in  question  in  passing  on  the  question  of  a  grade  or  over- 
head crossing,  so  far  as  it  affected  safety  to  life  and  property,  and  so  far  as 
it  would  necessarily  impede  and  endanger  the  travel  or  transportation  upon 
the  railway  so  crossed,  but  for  the  commission  to  enter  into  any  future  use 
that  is  proposed  to  be  made  of  the  property  in  question  would  not  be  proper 
under  the  law,  for  the  reason  that  the  respondent  railroad  company  could 
change  its  intention  at  any  moment  and  abandon  the  proposed  use  of  the 
property  in  question.  The  commission  must  deal  with  the  status  of  the 
property  as  it  exists  at  the  time  the  petition  was  filed  and  the  hearing  had. 


The  object  and  purposes  of  the  building  of  the  road  in  question,  the  Illinois 
Transfer  Railroad  company,  is  to  furnish  terminal  facilities  for  the  various 
roads  entering  the  city  of  East  St.  Louis,  and  also,  as  appears  from  the  evi- 
dence, to  furnish  shipping  facilities  to  large  industries  situated  along  the  line 
of  the  proposed  route  of  the  road  in  question.  In  order  that  the  object  and 
purposes  of  this  road  may  be  carried  out,  and  these  facilities  furnished,  it  is 
necessary  that  they  be  allowed  to  unite  and  connect  with  the  roads  which 
they  cross.  Under  the  statute  of  this  State  it  becomes  the  duty  of  the  Rail- 
road and  Warehouse  Commission  to  permit  one  railroad  crossing  another  to 
unite  and  connect  its  tracks  with  such  roads  so  crossed,  in  order  that  ship- 
ping facilities  may  be  furnished  to  each  of  the  said  roads.  In  this  case,  by 
agreement,  the  principal  trunk  lines  entering  the  city  of  East  St.  Louis 
crossed  by  this  road,  with  the  exception  of  the  respondent  company,  agreed 
with  the  terminal  road  in  question  for  the  crossing  of  their  said  tracks  at 
grades,  and  the  uniting  and  connecting  of  the  same  in  order  that  terminal 
facilities  may  be  furnished  by  the  Illinois  Transfer  Railroad  Company. 

It  is  contended  that  because  the  respondent  railroad  company  is  operating 
a  belt  or  terminal  railway,  that  such  fact  ought  to  be  taken  into  considera- 
tion in  passing  upon  the  question  of  the  proposed  crossing.  And  it  is  further 
insisted  that  the  present  terminal  facilities  furnished  by  the  respondent  rail- 
road company  are  sufficient  and  ample.  It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  it  is  the 
object  and  purpose  of  the  law  to  give  the  best  opportunity  and  facilities  for 
railway  shipment.  That  has  been  the  policy  pursued  by  the  State  of  Illinois 
for  years.  To  hold  otherwise  would  be  to  say  that  no  competing  lines  could 
be  built  and  no  additional  terminal  facilities  could  be  added  in  the  city  of 
East  St.  Louis.  We  cannot  so  hold  and  the  law  cannot  be  so  construed. 

It  is  further  contended  that  the  place  of  crossing  should  be  changed  and 
carried  to  the  east  end  of  the  property  acquired  by  the  respondent  railroad 
company,  which  would  cause  the  road  in  question  to  build  and  acquire  the 
right  of  way  two  miles  distant.  This  only  could  be  urged  by  a  competing 
line,  and  cannot  be  considered  reasonable  under  the  evidence  in  the  case. 

It  is  also  urged  that  it  might  be  well  for  this  road  to  run  at  the  west  end  of 
the  strip  of  ground  acquired  by  the  respondent  railroad  company,  but  it  is  in 
evidence  that  if  such  change  should  be  made  by  the  commission,  that  it  would 
destroy  all  connecting  facilities  with  the  Shickle-Harrison-Howard  Iron  Com- 
pany, which  is  the  largest  manufacturing  establishment  on  the  line  of  road  in 
question.  It  does  not  come  within  the  province  of  this  commission  to  make 
changes  in  the  proposed  location  of  a  crossing,  the  effect  of  which  would  be 
to  destroy  connections  with  manufacturing  establishments  which  desire  ter- 
minal facilities  simply  for  the  convenience  of  a  competing  line  that  seeks  to 
destroy  the  building  of  a  road  which  proposes  to  furnish  facilities  equal  to 
theirs. 

We  cannot  but  repeat  what  we  said  in  a  former  decision,  that  there  can  be 
no  question  "but  that  all  grade  crossings  of  railroads  or  of  highways  are  in 
the  main  dangerous,  and  should  be  avoided  whenever  it  is  practicable  and 
possible  to  do  so  without  placing  too  great  a  burden  upon  the  company  con- 
structing the  same.  We  believe  that  the  policy  of  this  commission  should  be 
to  order  overhead  crossings  whenever  it  is  possible  and  practicable  to  do  so." 

Or,  in  another  case,  where  we  said:  "That  it  is  and  will  be  the  policy  of 
this  commission  to  order  overhead  or  under  crossings  wherever  and  when- 
ever it  is  possible  to  do  so,  believing  as  we  do  that  the  advanced  thought  and 
system  of  railroad  building  demands  it,  and  that  the  increased  speed  of  trains 
and  the  safety  of  life  and  property  require  it." 

And  we  still  insist  that  private  inconvenience  and  cost  must  yield  to  public 
necessity. 

But  in  this  case  there  is  a  material  difference  between  the  cases  referred  to 
and  the  case  at  bar.  The  road  seeking  to  cross  in  this  case  is  a  belt  line 
carrying  no  passengers,  and  being  built  for  the  purpose  only  of  connection 
with  the  main  arteries  of  traffic  entering  the  city  of  East  St.  Louis,  carrying 
no  passengers  and  doing  a  freight  business  only.  Their  trains  are  run  at  all 
times  under  control,  and  we  believe,  as  we  have  insisted  from  the  origin  of 
this  commission,  that  in  cities  overhead  crossings  are  not  only  expensive  to 


'7 

the  road  crossing,  but  are  destructive  of  the  value  of  property  abutting  the 
same,  and  inconvenience,  in  this  case  particularly,  to  the  manufacturing  in- 
dustries situated  along  the  line.  It  can  not  therefore  be  urged  that  this 
commission  is  in  any  way  deviating  or  abandoning  the  policy  set  forth  in 
former  decisions,  in  saying,  that  this  belt  road  constructed  for  the  purpose  of 
carrying  freight  only,  shall  go  at  grade  in  this  particular  case. 

DECISION. 

It  is  therefore  ordered  and  decreed  that  the  petitioner,  the  Illinois  Transfer 
Railroad  Company,  have  leave  and  it  is  hereby  empowered  and  ordered  to 
cross  with  its  tracks  the  main  line  and  track  and  connecting  track  of  the 
Louisville,  Evansville  &  St.  Louis  Consolidated  Railroad  Company  at  grade, 
and  connect  and  unite  their  tracks  with  the  same,  at  a  point  described  and 
set  forth  in  this  decision,  and  as  marked  and  designated  on  the  plat  attached 
hereto  and  made  a  part  of  this  decision,  marked  Exhibit  "A." 

(Plat  referred  to  herein  on  file  in  office.) 

It  is  further  ordered  that  the  petitioning  road  interlock  the  crossing  at  the 
above  named  point  with  an  interlocking  system,  in  accordance  with  the  re- 
quirements of  the  Board  of  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commissioners  of  the 
State  of  Illinois,  and  that  the  cost  of  construction  and  future  maintenance 
thereof  shall  be  paid  by  the  petitioning  road,  and  that  the  operating  expenses 
shall  be  divided  between  the  roads  as  follows: 

The  road  seeking  to  cross,  viz:  The  Illinois  Transfer  Railroad  Company 
shall  pay  three-fourths  (%)  of  the  operating  expenses  and  the  Louisville, 
Evansville  &  St.  Louis  Consolidated  Railroad  Company  one-fourth 

Dated  at  Springfield,  111.,  this  6th  day  of  February,  A.  D.  1899. 


BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 


Baltimore  &J3hio  Southwestern  Railway  Company 

vs. 
Jacksonville  &  St.  Louis  Railway  Company. 

Petition  for  protection  of  crossing  at  Shattuc,  Illinois. 

APPEARANCES : 

R.  E.  HAMIL,  for  Petitioner. 
C.  M.  JSTANTON,  for  Respondent. 


The  Baltimore  &  Ohio  Southwestern  Railway  Company  filed  a  petition  with 
the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  of  Illinois,  setting  forth  that  they 
were  the  owners  of  a  line  operated  and  extending  from  East  St.  Louis  in  the 
State  of  Illinois,  to  a  point  on  the  Wabash  river,  opposite  the  city  of  Vin- 
cennes,  Indiana;  that  the  main  track  of  said  line  crosses  at  grade  the  main 
track  of  the  Jacksonville  &  St.  Louis  Railway  Company  at  Shattuc,  in  the 
county  of  Clinton,  in  the  State  of  Illinois;  that  said  Baltimore  &  Ohio  South- 
western Railway  Company,  the  petitioner  herein,  desires  to  unite  with  said 
Jacksonville  &  St.  Louis  Railway  Company  in  protecting  said  crossing  with 
proper  devices  and  appliances,  thus  securing  greater  safety  to  persons  and 
property  and  enabling  trains  to  pass  said  crossing  without  stopping. 


8 

The  petition  further  sets  forth,  that  said  Baltimore  &  Ohio  Southwestern 
Railway  company  could  not  agree  with  the  said  Jacksonville  &  St.  Louis 
Railway  company  upon  a  plan  for  protecting  said  crossing.  The  petition 
further  sets  forth  that  the  public  good  requires  that  said  crossing  be  pro- 
tected ;  and  filed  with  the  commission  plats  showing-  the  location  of  the  tracks 
involved  in  said  crossing,  and  made  said  plats  part  of  its  petition  herein. 

The  petitioner  prays  that  the  commission  give  notice  to  the  said  Jackson- 
ville &  St.  Louis  Railway  company  of  the  filing  of  said  petition,  ask  the  com- 
mission to  view  the  site  of  said  crossing,  and  also  to  appoint  a  time  and  place 
for  the  hearing  of  said  petition,  and  praying  that  the  commission  enter  an 
order  prescribing  a  proper  device  and  machinery  for  the  proper  protection  of 
said  crossing,  in  pursuance  of  the  act  of  the  General  Assembly,  approved 
June  2,  1891.  The  petitioner  further  prays  that  the  commission  will  in  said 
order  fix  the  proportion  of  the  cost  of  construction,  operation  and  mainte- 
nance of  said  device  that  each  of  the  parties  herein  shall  pay. 

Notice  of  the  filing  of  said  petition  by  said  Baltimore  &  Ohio  Southwestern 
Railway  company  was  properly  given  to  the  said  respondent,  the  Jackson- 
ville &.  St.  Louis  Railway  company,  and  they  acknowledged  service;  the 
commission  viewed  the  site  of  the  crossing  as  required  by  statute,  and  fixed 
a  time  and  place  for  the  hearing  of  said  petition,  the  same  being  at  the  office 
of  the  commission  at  Springfield  on  the  2d  day  of  January,  which  said  date 
was  afterwards  changed  to  the  3d  day  of  January,  A.'  D.  1900. 

The  Jacksonville  &  St.  Louis  Railway  company  filed  an  answer  to  said 
petition  asking  that  an  interlocker  be  not  granted,  for  reasons  set  forth  in  the 
answer,  also  correspondence  between  the  said  Baltimore  &  Ohio  Southwestern 
Railway  company  and  the  said  Jacksonville  &  St.  Louis  Railway  company 
relative  to  said  crossing. 

FINDINGS. 

The  commission  after  hearing  the  evidence  in  the  case  and  the  arguments 
of  counsel  find: 

That  the  crossing  is  of  such  a  character  as  to  demand  an  interlocking  sys- 
tem for  the  protection  of  life  and  property;  and  that  an  interlocking  system 
should  be  constructed,  maintained  and  operated  at  the  said  crossing  of  the 
Baltimore  &  Ohio  Southwestern  Railway  company  and  Jacksonville  &  St. 
Louis  Railway  company  at  Shattuc,  111. 


It  is  therefore  ordered  that  the  said  railway  companies  forthwith  proceed 
to  protect  said  crossing  at  Shattuc,  111.,  by  an  interlocking  system,  to  be  ap- 
proved according  to  the  statute  by  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission; 
that  the  same  be  constructed  under  the  supervision  of  the  consulting  engi- 
neer of  said  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  of  Illinois. 

It  is  further  ordered  by  the  commission  that  each  of  said  companies  shall 
pay  such  proportion  of  the  cost  of  constructing,  erecting  and  maintaing  the 
said  interlocking  system  and  all  thereto  appertaining  as  the  number  of  levers 
that  shall  operate  the  switches  and  signals  and  other  parts  of  said  interlock- 
ing system  in  and  for  the  respective  tracks  of  each  of  said  companies  shall 
bear  to  the  whole  number  of  levers  required  in  said  interlocking  system,  and 
each  of  said  companies  shall  pay  one-half  (*£)  of  the  cost  of  operating  the 
said  interlocking  system. 

It  is  further  ordered  that  should  either  of  the  companies  aforesaid  desire  to 
add  to  the  number  of  levers  used  in  the  interlocking  devices  for  their  own 
benefit,  that  said  companies  desiring  the  addition  of  such  levers  shall  pay 
the  entire  cost  of  such  addition,  when  properly  approved  by  the  railroad 
commission  of  the  State  of  Illinois. 

Dated  at  Springfield  this  3d  day  of  July,  A.  D.,  1900. 


9 

BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OK  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 


Chicago  &  Alton  Railroad  Company, 

vs. 
Terre  Haute  &  Indianapolis  Railroad  Company  and  V.  T.  Malott,  Receiver, 

Protection  of  crossing  at  Minier. 

APPEARANCES : 

For  Petitioner,  WM.  BROWN, 
For  Respondent,  T.  J.  GOLDEN, 

Opinion  by  LINDLY,  Chairman. 


This  case  was  brought  before  the  commission  by  a  petition  presented  by 
the  Chicago  &  Alton  Railroad  company,  asking  that  the  grade  crossing  at 
Minier  in  Tazewell  county,  111.,  where  the  main  track  of  the  Chicago  &  Alton 
Railroad  company  crosses  the  main  track  of  the  Terre  Haute  &  Indianapolis 
Railroad  Company,  be  protected  by  proper  interlocking  device  and  machinery 
for  the  protection  of  the  crossing,  according  to  the  general  laws  of  the  State 
of  Illinois. 

The  petition  was  properly  filed  setting  forth  the  facts  in  the  case,  asking 
that  the  commission  notify  the  said  respondent,  the  Terre  Haute  &  Indian- 
apolis Railroad  company;  that  they  proceed  to  view  the  site  of  said  crossing 
and  appoint  a  time  and  place  for  the  hearing  of  the  petition,  and  that  there- 
upon they  make  a  proper  order  in  said  matter,  apportioning  the  cost  of  the 
construction,  operation  and  maintenance  of  said  plant  at  this  place. 

Notice  was  duly  given  to  the  Terre  Haute  &  Indianapolis  Railroad  com- 
pany of  the  filing  of  the  petitions  by  the  said  Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  com- 
pany, notified  the  parties  of  the  date  fixed  by  the  commission  for  the  viewing 
of  the  crossing  and  the  time  and  place  of  the  hearing  of  said  petition.  In 
accordance  with  said  notice  the  commission  viewed  the  site  of  said  crossing 
on  the  20th  day  of  June,  A.  D.  1900,  and  the  case  was  heard  at  the  office  of 
the  commission  in  Springfield,  111.,  on  the  3d  day  of  July,  A.  D.  1900,  all  of 
the  commissioners  being  present. 

Upon  such  hearing  statements  were  made  by  the  said  petitioner  and  re- 
spondent herein,  by  their  respective  counsel,  and  the  facts  as  existed  were 
agreed  upon  and  submitted  to  the  commission  without  further  evidence. 

FINDINGS. 

The  commission  having  taken  under  advisement  the  facts  as  agreed  upon 
by  the  respective  parties  hereto,  find: 

That  the  crossing  of  said  companies  at  Minier,  111.,  Is  dangerous  and  should 
be  protected  by  an  interlocking  system. 


It  is  therefore  ordered  by  the  commission  that  companies,  the  Chicago  & 
Alton  Railway  company  and  the  Terre  Haute  &  Indianapolis  Railroad  com- 
pany forthwith  proceed  to  protect  said  crossing  at  Minier,  111.,  by  an  inter- 
locking system,  to  be  approved  by  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission 
of  the  State  of  Illinois. 


10 

It  is  further  ordered  by  the  commission  that  each  of  said  companies  shall 
pay  such  proportion  of  the  cost  of  constructing,  erecting  and  maintaining  the 
said  interlocking  system  and  all  thereto  appertaining  as  the  number  of  levers 
that  shall  operate  switches,  signals  and  other  parts  of  said  interlocking 
system  in  and  for  the  respective  tracks1  of  each  of  said  companies  shall  bear 
to  the  whole  number  of  levers  required  in  said  interlocking  system,  and  each 
of  said  companies  shall  pay  one-half  (%)  of  the  cost  of  operating  the  said 
interlocking  system. 

It  is  further  ordered  that  should  either  of  the  companies  aforesaid  desire  to 
add  to  the  number  of  levers  used  in  the  interlocking  device  for  their  own 
benefit,  that  said  companies  desiring  the  addition  of  such  levers  shall  pay  the 
entire  cost  of  such  addition,  when  properly  approved  by  the  Railroad  and 
Warehouse  Commission  of  the  State  of  Illinois. 

Dated  at  Springfield,  111.,  this  3d  day  of  July,  A.  D.  1900. 


BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 


Chicago  &  Alton  Railroad  Company, 

vs. 
Terre  Haute  &  Indianapolis  Railroad  Company,  and  V.  T.  Malott,  Receiver. 

Protection  of  Crossing  at  Atlanta. 

APPEARANCES : 

WM.  BROWN,  for  Petitioner. 
T.  J.  GOLDEN,  for  Respondent. 

Opinion  by  LINDLY,  Chairman. 


The  Chicago  &  Alton  Railroad  Company  filed  a  petition  with  the  Railroad 
and  Warehouse  Commission  of  Illinois  setting  forth  the  fact  that  they  were  a 
corporation  doing  business  in  Illinois,  and  that  their  track  crossed  at  grade 
the  track  of  the  Terre  Haute  &  Indianapolis  Railroad  Company  at  Atlanta, 
Logan  county,  111.;  that  the  petitioner,  the  said  Chicago  &  Alton  Railway 
company  desired  to  unite  with  the  said  Terre  Haute  &  Indianapolis  Rail- 
road company  in  protecting  said  crossing  with  proper  devices  and  appliances, 
thus  securing  greater  safety  to  persons  and  property,  and  enabling  trains  to 
pass  said  crossing  without  stopping,  but  that  they  were  unable  to  agree  with 
the  Terre  Haute  &  Indianapolis  Railroad  company  upon  a  plan  of  the  same, 
and  that  the  public  good  required  that  said  crossing  be  so  protected;  and 
asked  that  notice  be  given  to  said  Terre  Haute  &  Indianapolis  Railroad  com- 
pany, and  filed  with  the  said  petition  plats  showing  the  location  of  said 
tracks,  and  further  prayed  that  the  commission  view  the  site  of  said  crossing, 
fix  a  time  and  place  for  the  hearing  of  said  petition,  and  enter  proper  or'ders 
for  the  erection  of  an  interlocking  system  at  this  point  and  apportion  the 
cost  of  the  construction,  operation  and  maintenance  of  the  same  that  each  of 
the  parties  hereto  shall  pay. 

In  accordance  with  the  prayer  of  said  petition  the  proper  notice  was  given 
to  said  respondents  and  the  crossing  was  viewed  by  the  commission  on  the 
20th  day  of  June,  A.  D.  1900,  and  the  case  set  for  trial  on  the  3d  day  of  July, 
A.  D.  1900,  at  which  time  the  evidence  was  heard,  as  was  also  the  arguments 
of  the  counsel  for  the  respective  parties. 


II 

FINDINGS. 

Thereupon  after  due  consideration  the  commission  find:  That  an  inter- 
locking system  is  necessary  for  greater  safety  to  persons  and  property  at  said 
point. 

ORDER. 

It  is  therefore  ordered  that  an  interlocking  system  be  constructed,  main- 
tained and  operated  at  said  crossing  of  the  Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  com- 
pany and  the  Terre  Haute  &  Indianapolis  Railroad  company  at  Atlanta,  in 
Logan  county,  in  the  State  of  Illinois;  and  that  said  companies  proceed  to 
protect  said  crossing  at  Atlanta,  111.,  by  an  interlocking  system  to  be  ap- 
proved according  to  the  statute  by  the  railroad  commission  of  said  State. 

It  is  further  ordered  by  the  commission  that  each  of  said  companies  shall 
pay  such  proportion  of  the  cost  of  construction,  erecting  and  maintaining  the 
said  interlocking  system  and  all  thereto  appertaining  as  the  number  of  levers 
that  shall  operate  the  switches  and  signals  and  other  parts  of  said  interlock- 
ing system  in  and  for  the  respective  tracks  of  each  of  said  companies  shall 
bear  to  the  whole  number  of  levers  required  in  said  interlocking  system,  and 
each  of  said  companies  shall  pay  one-half  (y2)  of  the  cost  of  operating  the 
said  interlocking  system. 

It  is  further  ordered  that  should  either  of  the  companies  aforesaid  desire  to 
add  to  the  number  of  levers  used  in  the  interlocking  device  for  their  own 
benefit,  that  said  company  desiring  the  addition  of  such  levers,  shall  pay  the 
entire  cost  of  such  addition,  when  properly  approved  by  the  railroad  com- 
mission of  the  State  of  Illinois. 

Dated  at  Springfield,  111.,  this  3rd  day  of  July,  A.  D.,  1900. 


BEFOBE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 


Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  Company 

vs. 
Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company. 

Petition  for  protection  of  crossing  at  Mason  City. 

APPEARANCES: 

For  Petitioner,  WM.  BROWN. 

For  Respondent,  JOHN  G.  DRENNAN. 

Opinion  by  LINDLY,  Chairman. 


The  Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  company  having  failed  to  secure  an  agree- 
ment with  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  company,  as  to  the  construction  of  a 
proper  interlocking  device,  where  the  main  track  of  the  Chicago  &  Alton 
Railway  crosses  the  main  track  of  the  Illinois  Central,  at  Mason  City,  in 
Mason  county,  Illinois,  they  filed  a  petition  asking  the  commission  to  make 
proper  orders  in  the  case. 

The  commission  viewed  the  crossing,  and  when  the  case  was  set  for  trial 
the  parties  agreed  that  the  board  should  enter  an  order  for  an  interlocker  at 
that  place ;  the  board  apportioning  the  cost  between  the  railroads  as  they  saw 
fit  and  proper. 


12 


It  is  therefore  ordered  and  decreed  by  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Com- 
mission of  the  State  of  Illinois,  that  an  interlocking  plant  be  constructed  in 
accordance  with  the  laws  of  the  State,  and  the  rules  of  said  Railroad  and 
Warehouse  Comimission,  under  the  supervision  of  the  consulting  engineer  of 
said  commission,  and  that  the  costs  of  the  construction  and  maintenance  of 
said  plant  be  divided  between  the  Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  Company  and 
the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company,  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of  levers 
necessary  to  control  the  switches,  derails  and  signals  in  or  adjoining  the 
tracks  of  each  company  respectively,  and  that  the  expenses  of  operation  of 
said  plant  be  divided  half  and  half  between  the  two  said  companies. 
•  It  is  further  ordered  that  should  either  of  the  companies  aforesaid  desire  to 
add  to  the  number  of  levers  used  in  the  interlocking  device,  for  their  own 
benefit,  that  said  company  desiring  the  addition  of  said  levers,  shall  pay  the 
entire  cost  of  such  addition,  when  properly  approved  by  said  commission. 

Dated  at  Springfield,  this  12th  day  of  December,  1900. 


BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 


Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  Company 

vs. 

Illinois  Central  Railroad  ConTpany. 
Protection  of  Crossing  at  Lincoln. 

APPEARANCES : 

WM.  BROWN,  for  Petitioner. 

JOHN  G.  DBENNAN,  for  Respondent. 

Opinion  by  LINDLY,  Chairman. 


The  Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  Co.  filed  with  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse 
Commissioners,  a  petition  setting  forth  the  fact  that  the  main  track  of  said 
railroad  crossed  at  grade  the  main  track  of  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Co., 
at  Lincoln,  Logan  county,  Illinois,  and  that  the  petitioner  desires  to  unite 
with  the  said  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Co.,  in  protecting  said  crossing  with 
proper  devices  and  appliances,  thus  securing  greater  safety  to  persons  and 
property,  and  enabling  trains  to  pass  said  crossing  without  stopping,  but 
that  they  were  unable  to  agree  with  the  said  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Co. 
upon  a  plan  for  the  same,  and  therefore  they  petitioned  the  commission  to 
give  notice  to  the  said  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company  to  view  the  site  of 
said  crossing,  and  appoint  a  time  and  place  for  hearing  of  the  petition  asking 
that  a  proper  order  prescribing  a  proper  device  and  machinery  for  the  pro- 
tection of  said  crossing  be  made. 

The  commissioners  viewed  the  crossing  and  set  the  case  for  hearing,  at 
which  time  and  place  the  parties  agreed  that  an  order  should  be  entered  by 
the  railroad  commissioners,  apportioning  the  costs  of  construction,  mainte- 
nance and  operation. 


u 


It  is  therefore  ordered  and  decreed  by  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Com- 
mission of  the  State  of  Illinois,  that  an  interlocking  plant  be  constructed  in 
accordance  with  the  laws  of  the  State,  and  the  rules  of  said  Railroad  and 
Warehouse  Commission,  under  the  supervision  of  the  consulting  engineer  of 
said  commission,  and  that  the  costs  of  the  construction  and  maintenance  of 
said  plant  be  divided  between  the  Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  Co.  and  the  Illi- 
nois Central  Railroad  Co.  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of  levers  necessary  to 
control  the  switches,  derails  and  signals,  in  or  adjoining  the  tracks  of  each 
company  respectively,  and  that  the  expenses  of  operation  of  said  plant  be 
divided  half  and  half  betweeen  the  two  said  companies. 

It  is  further  ordered  that  should  either  of  the  companies  aforesaid  desire  to 
add  to  the  number  of  levers  used  in  the  interlocking  device  for  their  own 
benefit,  that  said  company  desiring  the  addition  of  said  levers,  shall  pay  the 
entire  cost  of  such  addition,  when  properly  approved  by  said  commission. 

Dated  at  Springfield  this  12th  day  of  December,  1900. 


BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 


The  People  of  the  State  of  Illinois  on  Relation  of  Siegel  Copel,  State's  At- 
torney of  Saline  County,  Illinois. 

vs. 
Cleveland,  Cincinnati,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis  Railway  Company. 

Debt. 
Opinion  by  LINDLY,  Chairman. 


And  now  come  Siegel  Copel,  State's  attorney  of  Saline  county,  and  Chois- 
ser,  Whitley  &  Choisser,  attorneys  for  the  relator,  and  also  comes  the  Cleve- 
land, Cincinnati,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis  Railway  Company  and  enter  their  ap- 
pearance herein.  And  it  appearing  to  the  commission  that  heretofore  at  the 
September  term,  A.  D.  1900,  of  the  circuit  court  of  Saline  county,  in  the 
State  of  Illinois,  the  said  relator  brought  his  said  action  against  the  said  de- 
fendant railroad  company  to  recover  certain  penalties  for  alleged  discrimina- 
tions on  the  line  of  said  railroad  betweeen  Cairo,  111.,  and  Danville,  111.,  and 
particularly  discriminations  alleged  to  have  occurred  in  charging  a  higher 
rate  upon  hard  wood  lumber  from  the  station  of  Harrisburg,  111.,  than  was 
charged  and  received  for  the  same  product  going  in  the  same  direction  from 
Cairo,  111.,  and  being  a  longer  distance  by  about  seventy  (70)  miles. 

And  it  further  appears  to  the  commission  that  the  said  railroad  company 
does  not  admit  that  it  has  been  guilty  of  unjust  discriminations,  but  claims 
that  the  difference  in  the  rate  charged  between  Cairo,  111.,  and  points  north 
of  Cairo  is  not  unjust  discrimination.  Still  in  order  to  avoid  all  controversies 
with  reference  to  the  discriminations  charged  said  railroad  company  has 
agreed  with  the  said  relator  and  his  attorneys  representing  the  People  of  the 
State  of  Illinois  in  said  suit  and  consent  to  a  judgment  of  two  thousand 
(2,000)  dollars  in  full  of  all  alleged  discriminations  or  extortions,  and  of  all 
claims  and  charges  of  extortion  and  discriminations  under  the  Illinois  stat- 
utes at  any  and  all  of  its  stations  on  the  line  of  the  Cairo  division  of  said 
railroad  company  between  Cairo  and  Danville,  111. 


It  further  appears  to  the  commission  that  said  suit  was  brought  without 
the  authority  and  the. consent  of  the  said  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commis- 
sion. 

It  further  appears  to  the  commission  that  the, original  declaration  filed  in 
said  cause  does  not  sufficiently  set  up  the  charges  of  extortion  and  discrimi- 
nation for  which  recovery  is  sought  to  be,  had'. 

It  is  further  ordered  that  said  relator  Siegel  Cbpel,  State's  attorney  of 
Saline  county,  and  the  said  Choisser,  Whitley  &  Choisser,  attorneys  for  said 
relator,  are  authorized  by  the  said  commission  to  file  an  amended  declara- 
tion in  said  cause  sufficiently  setting  forth  such  items  of  extortion  and  dis- 
crimination for  which  recovery  might  be  had. 

It  is  further  ordered  by  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission,  and  con- 
sent is  hereby  given  by  said  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  that  said 
cause  of  action  be  settled  by  an  entry  of  a  judgment  therein  against  the  said 
Cleveland,  Cincinnati,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis  Railway  Company  for  the  sum  of 
two  thousand  (2,000)  dollars  in  full  of  all  penalties  arising  or  accruing  by 
reason  of  any  of  the  alleged  charges  of  discrimination  or  extortion  set  forth 
in  said  amended  declaration  and  in  full  of  all  charges  and  claims  for  extor- 
tion and  discrimination  occurring  on  the  said  Cairo  division  of  the  said  Cleve- 
land, Cincinnati,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis  Railway  Company  up  and  to  the  filing 
of  such  amended  declaration.  • 

It  is  further  ordered  by  said  commission  that  all  attorneys'  fees  to  the 
attorneys  for  said  relator  in  said  cause  of  action  shall  in  no  wise  be  charged 
to  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  or  any  claim  presented  against 
the  said  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  for  the  services  of  such  at- 
torneys. 

Dated  at  Springfield,  111.,  this  8th  day  of  January,  A.  D.,  1901. 


BEFOBE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 


In  the  matter  of  the  crossing  of  the  Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  Company  by 
the  Chicago,  Peoria  &  St.  Louis  Railway  Company  at  Bridge  Junction,  St. 
Glair  county,  III. 


This  cause  comes  before  the  commission  on  the  objection  of  the  Chicago  & 
Alton  Railway  Company  to  the  crossing  of  their  tracks  at  grade  by  the 
Chicago,  Peoria  &  St.  Louis  Railway  Company.  Objection  was  made  July 
23,  1901.  Notice  sent  to  the  Chicago,  Peoria  &  St.  Louis  Railway  Company 
on  that  date.  Place  of  crossing  viewed  July  30,  1901.  Case  continued  at  re- 
quest of  Chicago,  Peoria  &  St.  Louis  Railway  Company  to  Sept.  7,  1901.  At 
that  time  it  was  learned  that  the  Chicago,  Peoria  &  St.  Louis  Railway  Com- 
pany had  gone  ahead  and  finished  up  the  crossing  and  was  using  it.  Hear- 
ing had  in  the  office  of  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission,  at  Spring- 
field, on  that  date,  and  continued  for  decision  until  Nov.  8,  1901.  Further 
hearing  on  said  date.  The  Chicago,  Peoria  &  St.  Louis  Railway  Company  on 
that  date  filed  a  motion  to  dismiss  the  proceedings  for  want  of  jurisdiction, 
which  motion  was  -overruled,  for  the  reason  that  it  came  too  late,  the  case 
having  been  heard  without  objection  up  to  that  time.  Cause  continued  until 
Nov.  19,  1901,  and  all  parties  met  at  Bridge  Junction  for  the  purpose  of  trying 
to  make  a  final  settlement.  All  parties  interested  were  present  and  the  board 
notified  the  parties  interested  that  they  would  require  an  overhead  crossing. 
Cause  continued  until  Dec.  3,  1901,  to  allow  railroads  to  present  plans  for  the 
overhead  crossing,  at  the  regular  meeting  of  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse 
Commission  at  their  office  at  Springfield. 


15 

The  proposed  crossing  crosses  from  east  to  west  over  the  Wabash  railroad, 
the  Cleveland,  Cincinnati,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis  railroad,  the  Terminal  Rail- 
road Association,  of  St.  Louis,  and  the  Chicago  &  Alton  railroad,  all  of  which 
are  main  tracks  of  the  above  mentioned  roads.  The  point  where  this  road 
crosses  the  terminal  is  at,  or  near,  where  the  other  three  railroads  connect 
with  the  terminal  with  their  passenger  trains  going  into  and  coming  out  of 
St.  Louis  over  the  Eads  bridge,  the  larger  portion  of  the  passenger  business 
going  into  St.  Louis  over  the  Eads  bridge  and  the  terminal  tracks  from  the 
north. 

The  Chicago,  Peoria  &  St.  Louis  Railroad  Company  have  recently  built  a 
new  freight  house,  and  are  building  several  miles  of  switches  and  tracks  in 
their  yard,  directly  west  of  where  this  proposed  crossing  is.  They  are 
elevating  all  the  tracks  from  seven  (7)  to  twenty  (20)  feet  above  the  natural 
surface  of  the  ground;  and  in  our  opinion  there  will  be  no  trouble  for  them 
to  elevate  the  one  track  to  such  a  distance  that  they  can  cross  over  the  above 
mentioned  tracks  by  an  overhead  crossing,  and  in  that  way  save  all  danger 
of  collision  at  the  grade  crossing. 

The  Chicago,  Peoria  &  St.  Louis  Railway  are  doing  the  switching  across 
their  track,  as  now  located,  for  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company  as  well 
as  for  themselves,  and  they  themselves  have  yards  on  each  side  of  the  pro- 
posed crossing,  where  there  is  a  constant  switching  back  and  forth  from  one 
yard  to  the  other,  and  which  is  necessarily  very  dangerous  by  reason  of  the 
great  number  of  trains  crossing  their  tracks  at  this  point,  and  will  unneces- 
sarily, impede  and  endanger  the  travel  and  transportation  over  the  Chicago  & 
Alton  Railway  track. 

It  is  claimed  by  the  Chicago,  Peoria  &  St.  Louis  Railway  that  it  would  be 
a  great  hardship  on  them  to  have  to  erect  and  maintain  an  overhead  crossing. 
ThiSj  of  course,  is  true;  but  when  we  consider  the  great  number  of  accidents 
at  grade  crossings,  the  great  expense  of  putting  in  and  maintaining  inter- 
lockers,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  within  the  next  ten  years,  if  the  said  com- 
pany erect  and  maintain  an  overhead  crossing,  they  will  have  saved  more 
than  sufficient  money  to  pay  the  entire  cost  of  said  overhead  crossing,  by 
reason  of  having  no  accident  and  no  flagman  or  lockmen  to  pay.  Therefore, 
in  view  of  the  above  facts, 

It  is  hereby  ordered  by  the  board  that  the  Chicago,  Peoria  &  St.  Louis 
Railroad  Company  have  leave  to  cross  the  track  of  the  Chicago  &  Alton  Rail- 
way Company  at  Bridge  Junction,  where  their  tracks  have  been  placed  since 
the  beginning  of  this  proceeding,  with  the  overhead  crossing;  that  the  said 
overhead  crossing  shall  leave  twenty-two  (22)  feet  in  the  clear  from  the  top 
of  the  rails  of  the  Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  Company  to  the  lower  part  of 
the  superstructure  of  the  said  overhead  crossing  of  the  Chicago,  Peoria  &  St. 
Louis  Railway  Company. 

It  is  further  ordered  that  the  said  Chicago,  Peoria  &  St.  Louis  Railway 
Company  shall  pay  the  entire  cost  of  the  construction  and  future  mainte- 
nance of  said  crossing. 

It  is  further  ordered  that  the  Chicago,  Peoria  &  St.  Louis  Railway  Company 
pay  the  cost  and  expenses  of  the  commission  incurred  upon  this  petition. 

It  is  further  ordered  that  the  Chicago,  Peoria  &  St.  Louis  Railway  Company 
be  permitted  to  use  the  tracks  which  have  been  put  in  by  them  since  the  com- 
mencement of  this  proceeding,  and  after  this  commission  has  taken  jurisdic- 
tion of  this  case,  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  material  across  the  tracks  of  the 
Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  Company  to  raise  their  grade  'sufficiently  for  the 
approaches  to  the  crossing  over  the  Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  Company,  pro- 
vided such  use  shall  not  exceed  three  (3)  months  from  the  date  of  this  order. 
And  that  this  case  is  continued  until  the  regular  meeting  of  this  commission 
on  the  first  Tuesday  after  the  first  Monday  of  March,  1902. 

Dated  at  Springfield,  Illinois,  Dec.  3,  1901. 


16 

BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 


Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Railway  Company 


Alpheus  P.  Goddard,  Alpheus  J.  Goddard,  and  The  Freeport  General 
Electric  Company. 

Crossing  Case. 

In  the  matter  of  the  crossing  of  the  Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Rail- 
way tracks  by  Alpheus  P.  Goddard  and  Alpheus  J.  Goddard  and  the  Freeport 
General  Electric  Company,  with  their  electric  railroad  tracks,  on  Shawnee 
street,  extended  near  the  eastern  limits  of  the  city  of  Freeport. 

APPEARANCES: 

C.  B.  KEELER.  Attorney  for  Complainant. 
ALPHEUS  P.  GODDARU,  for  Defendants. 

Opinion  of  Commission,  by  JAMES  S.  NEVILLE,  Chairman. 


This  was  a  petition  filed  by  the  Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Railway 
Company,  alleging  that  defendants  were  a  railroad  company,  and  that  they 
were  attempting  to  cross  their  tracks  on  Shawnee  street,  near  the  eastern, 
limits  of  the  city  of  Freeport,  with  a  railroad  track  at  grade;  and  that  they 
objected  to  such  crossing,  and  asked  that  the  commission  view  the  proposed 
crossing  and  decide  what  was  the  proper  place  and  mode  of  crossing  for  said 
defendants. 

Petition  sets  up  that  the  defendants  are  common  carriers  for  the  transpor- 
tation of  passengers  and  freight  on  their  railroad,  to  be  operated  by  electric 
power  in  and  through  the  city  of  Freeport,  and  over  the  proposed  crossing 
of  the  Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Railway  on  said  Shawnee  street. 

Commission  viewed  the  proposed  place  of  crossing,  with  complainant's 
attorney  and  superintendent,  and  Alpheus  J.  Goddard,  defendant,  on  Nov.  21, 
1901. 

The  case  was  set  for  trial  Dec.  5,  1901,  in  the  office  of  the  Railroad  and 
Warehouse  Commission,  in  Chicago,  and  defendants  notified. 

Dec.  4,  1901,  the  defendants,  Alpheus  P.  Goddard  and  Alpheus  J.  Goddard, 
filed  in  the  office  of  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  at  Springfield 
the  following  plea: 

"The  above  named  defendants,'  Alpheus  P.  Goddard  and  Alpheus  J.  God- 
dard, for  answer  to  the  complainant  in  this  proceeding,  respectfully  state: 

"First — That  they  deny  that  the  said  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission 
of  the  State  of  Illinois  have  any  jurisdiction  in  the  premises. 

"Second — That  said  defendants  say  that  they  have  a  meritorious  defense  to 
the  said  petition,  and  save  all  the  rights  thereof  the  same  as  if  the  same  had 
been  set  forth.  Wherefore  the  defendants  pray  that  the  complaint  be  dis- 
missed." 

It  must  be  contended  by  the  defendants,  under  their  plea  to  the  jurisdic- 
tion, that  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  have  no  jurisdiction  over 
electric  railroads,  or  that  the  defendants  are  not  a  railroad  company  within 
the  meaning  of  the  statute. 

The  statute  provides  that  hereafter  any  railroad  company  desiring  to  cross 
with  its  tracks  the  main  line  of  another  railroad  company  shall  construct  the 
crossing  at  such  a  place  and  in  such  a  manner  as  will  not  unnecessarily  im- 


17 

pede  or  endanger  the  travel  or  transportation  upon  the  railroad  so  crossed. 
If,  in  any  case,  objection  is  made  to  the  place  or  mode  of  crossing  proposed 
by  the  company  desiring  the  same,  either  party  may  apply  to  the  Board  of 
Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commissioners,  and  it  shall  be  their  duty  to  view 
the  ground,  give  all  parties  interested  an  opportunity  to  be  heard,  and  after 
full  investigation,  with  due  regard  for  the  safety  of  life  and  property,  the 
board  shall  give  a  decision,  describing  the  place  where  and  the  manner  in 
which  said  crossing  shall  be  made.  But  in  all  cases  the  compensation  to  be 
paid  for  the  property  actually  required  for  the  crossing,  and  all  damages 
resulting  therefrom,  shall  be  determined  in  the  manner  provided  by  law,  in 
case  the  parties  fail  to  agree. 

It  cannot,  under  our  view  of  this  case,  be  insisted  that  an  electric  railroad 
company  is  not  a  railroad  company  within  the  meaning  of  the  statute.  The 
Supreme  Court  of  this  State,  in  the  case  of  Moses  et  al.  against  the  P.,  Ft. 
W.  &  C.  R.  R.  Co.,  21  111.,  523,  hold  that  street  railroads  are  railroads. 

Again,  in  the  city  of  Chicago  against  Evans  et  al.,  24  111.,  56,  the  same 
rule  is  laid  down. 

In  the  case  of  the  Electric  Railroad  Company  against  the  Rapid  Transit 
Company,  24  New  York,  566,  it  was  held  that  an  electric  railway  company 
was,  within  the  meaning  of  the  statute  (very  similar  to  our  statute),  a  rail- 
road company. 

The  Chicago  Northwestern  Railway  Company  against  The  Electric  Railway 
Company,  95  Wis.,  561,  it  was  held  that  an  electric  railway  company  was, 
within  the  meaning  of  the  statute,  a  railroad  company. 

The  former  Illinois  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission,  page  337,  De- 
cisions and  Opinions  of  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  of  Illinois, 
held  that  an  electric  railroad  was  a  railroad  within  the  meaning  of  the 
statute. 

The  same  question  has  been  decided  by  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United 
States,  in  a  very  late  decision,  in  the  case  of  Mallot  against  The  City  of  Col- 
linsville,  108  Federal  Report,  313,  and  I  can  see  no  reason  why  we  should  not 
follow  those  decisions.  A  railroad  company  organized  as  this  company,  for 
the  purpose  of  transporting  both  passengers  and  freight,  most  certainly  is  in 
the  same  line  of  business  (that  of  common  carrier)  as  any  railroad  company 
operating  by  steam  power,  and,  in  our  view  of  the  meaning  of  the  statute,  is 
a  railroad. 

It  may  be  insisted  that  the  respondents  are  not  a  railroad  company  within 
the  meaning  of  the  statute  for  the  reason  that  the  franchise  is  granted  to 
Alpheus  P.  Goddard  and  Alpheus  J.  Goddard,  as  individuals.  But,  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  they  are  to  operate  their  road  in  connection  with  the  General 
Electric  Company,  a  railroad  operated  by  a  corporation,  and  that  their  said 
road  is  to  be  a  part  of  that  system,  and  in  view  of  the  further  fact  that  the 
statute,  section  one,  provides  that  hereafter  any  railroad  company  (not  a 
corporation)  desiring  to  cross  the  main  track  of  another  railroad  company 
shall  construct  its  crossings  in  such  a  manner  as  not  to  unnecessarily  impede 
or  endanger  the  travel  of  said  road.  We  are  of  the  opinion,  and  so  hold,  that 
for  the  purpose  of  this  Act,  that  any  person,  company,  or  corporation  desiring 
to  cross  another  railroad  track  with  a  railroad  track  must  cross  it  at  such 
place  and  in  such  a  way  that  it  will  not  unnecessarily  impede  or  endanger 
the  travel  of  the  railroad  company  so  crossed;  and  that  it  will  not  unneces- 
sarily endanger  the  lives  or  property  of  the  public,  regardless  of  whether  it 
is  a  railroad  corporation  or  an  individual,  the  law  applying  to  the  railroad 
itself,  and  not  to  the  owners  or  operators. 

This  question  has  been  settled  to  our  entire  satisfaction  in  the  case  of  Chi- 
cago Dock  &  Canal  Co.  against  L.  P.  Garrity  et  al.,  115  111.,  155,  on  page  164. 
In  that  case  the  Supreme  Court  says: 

"The  city  council  or  board  of  trustees  shall  have  no  power  to  grant  the 
use  of,  or  the  right  to  lay  down,  any  railroad  tracks  in  any  street  of  the  city, 
to  any  steam  or  horse  railroad  company,  except  upon  a  petition  of  the  owners 
of  the  land  representing  more  than  one-half  of  the  frontage  of  the  street,  or 
so  much  thereof  as  is  sought  to  be  used  for  railroad  purposes.  It  is  very 
clear  that  'natural  persons'  are  here  within  the  intention,  although  not  within 

—2   O 


i8 

the  letter  of  .the  Act,  for  the  injury  against  which  protection  is  intended  to  be 
afforded  is  the  laying  of  railway  tracks  in  the  streets.  By  whom  the  tracks 
shall  be  laid  and  the  cars  thereon  operated  is,  manifestly,  of  no  consequence 
whatever.  The  same  result,  in  all  respects,  will  follow  the  laying  of  railway 
tracks  in  the  streets  and  operating  cars  thereon  by  individuals  as  will  follow 
the  laying  of  them  by  corporations.  The  use  of  the  word  'company,'  we 
have  no  doubt,  was  simply  because  such  tracks  are  almost  always  laid  and 
operated  by  companies.  The  clause  should  be  read  as  including  both  cor- 
porations and  individuals." 

On  December  5th  the  parties  met  at  the  office  of  the  Railroad  and  Ware- 
house Commission,  in  Chicago,  for  a  hearing,  C.  B.  Keeler  representing  the 
complainant.  Alpheus  J.  Goddard  appeared  in  person  and  asked  to  be  ex- 
cosed  from  taking  any  part  in  the  trial. 

Thereupon  the  commission  found  for  the  complainant  on  the  plea  to  the 
jurisdiction,  holding  that  the  commission  had  jurisdiction  over  electric  rail- 
roads, under  the  statute  providing  for  railroad  crossings,  the  same  as  over 
steam  railroads;  and  holding  that  the  defendants  are  a  railroad  company 
within  the  meaning  of  the  statute,  and  proceeded  to  hear  the;  evidence. 

The  evidence  shows  that  the  proposed  crossing  of  the  complainant's  road 
by  the  defendants'  electric  road  is  at  the  foot  of  a  very  deep  grade  from  the 
south,  to-wit:  100  feet  to  the  mile;  that  it  is  within  90  feet  of  the  embank- 
ment of  the  Illinois  Central  Railway,  which  is  about  20  feet  high,  that  abso- 
lutely shuts  off  all  view  of  trains  coming  from  the  north,  which  pass  under  the 
Illinois  Central  Railway  within  90  feet  of  Shawnee  street  and  the  proposed 
crossing  by  the  said  electric  railway  over  the  Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul 
railway;  that  trains  coming  from  the  north  and  crossing  under  the  Illinois 
Central  Railway  cannot  be  seen  by  a  person  standing  on  the  Chicago,  Mil- 
waukee &  St.  Paul  track  at  the  proposed  place  of  crossing  until  they  are 
within  150  feet  of  the  crossing;  that  a  car  on  the  electric  track  25  feet  north 
from  the  proposed  crossing  cannot  be  seen  by  an  engineer  coming  from  the 
north  on  the  Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Railway,  until  they  are  within 
about  50  feet  of  the  crossing;  that  the  grades  of  the  roads  of  both  parties 
descend  to  the  proposed  point  of  crossing;  and  for  the  above  reasons  it  is 
necessarily  a  very  dangerous  place  of  crossing. 

The  evidence  shows  that  an  electric  road  comes  east  on  Empire  street, 
which  is  about  1,000  feet  south  of  the  proposed  crossing,  to  Bauscher  street; 
thence  south  to  Adams  street  on  Bauscher  street;  thence  northwest  to  Chip- 
peway  street  on  Adams  street;  thence  north  to  Shawnee  street  on  Chippeway 
street;  thence  east  on  Shawnee  street  across  the  Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St. 
Paul  Railway  to  Arcade  avenue;  thence  north  under  the  Illinois  Central  rail- 
way tracks  to  Grand  avenue.  The  intersection  of  Bauscher  and  Adams  streets 
is  within  a  very  short  distance  of  the  crossing  of  Adams  street  over  the 
Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Railway,  which  is  by  an  overhead  bridge,  and 
the  commission  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  proper  place  to  cross  is  over  a 
bridge  on  Adams  street  or  between  Shawnee  street  and  Adams  street  by  an 
overhead  crossing. 

In  this  case  the  Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Railway  Company  objected, 
as  provided  by  the  statute.  The  commission  have  given  notice  to  the  defend- 
ants; have  viewed  the  crossing,  as  provided  for  by  law,  and  have  heard  the 
evidence  of  the  objectors  to  the  proposed  place  of  crossing  and  have  given  all 
parties  interested  an  opportunity  to  be  heard,  and  the  board,  after  full  inves- 
tigation of  all  the  facts,  and  a  thorough  inspection  of  the  ground,  find  that 
the  proposed  crossing  is  at  an  unnecessarily  dangerous  place;  that  it  will 
unnecessarily  impede  and  endanger  the  travel  over  the  complainant's  rail- 
road, and  that  there  is  within  so  short  a  distance  a  place  of  crossing  where 
the  defendants'  road  can  be  put  over  the  road  of  the  complainant,  and  thereby 
prevent  any  danger  that  could  or  would  arise  from  the  grade  crossing;  pre- 
vent any  unnecessary  delay  to  the  complainant  company  by  reason  of  a  grade 
crossing,  and  be  far  better  for  the  defendants'  own  road,  with  very  little 
more  expense  than  the  proposed  crossing. 

And  for  the  above  reasons,  we  shall  hold  that  the  proposed  place  of  cross- 
ing is  unnecessarily  dangerous,  and  will  unnecessarily  impede  and  endanger 


19 

the  travel  of  the  complainant's  company,  and  that  the  proper  place  of  cross- 
ing is  by  an  overhead  crossing  at  the  intersection  of  Adams  street  and  the 
Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Railway  Company,  or  between  Shawnee  street 
and  Adams  street. 

It  is  therefore  ordered  by  the  commission,  that  the  respondents,  Alpheus 
P.  Goddard  and  Alpheus  J.  Goddard  and  the  General  Electric  Company  of 
Freeport,  a  company  erecting  a  railway  at  Freeport,  have  leave  to  cross  with 
its  tracks  by  an  overhead  crossing  on  Adams  street,  over  the  tracks  of  the 
Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Railway,  and  they  are  ordered  not  to  cross  at 
grade  on  Shawnee  street;  that  said  overhead  crossing  shall  leave  22  feet  in 
the  clear  from  the  tops  of  the  rails  of  the  Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul 
Railway  Company  to  the  lower  part  of  the  superstructure  of  the  said  over- 
head crossing  of  the  defendants'  company. 

It  is  further  ordered  that  the  said  Alpheus  P.  Goddard  and  Alpheus  J. 
Goddard  and  the  General  Electric  Company,  railway  company,  pay  the  entire 
costs  of  the  construction  and  maintenance  of  the  said  crossing  of  their  said 
railway  over  the  Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Railway  on  said  Adams 
street. 

It  is  further  .ordered,  that  the  said  Alpheus  P.  Goddard  and  Alpheus  J. 
Goddard  and  the  General  Electric  Company  of  Freeport,  railroad  company, 
pay  the  cost  of  the  commission  in  this  proceeding. 

Dated  at  Springfield,  111.,  Dec.  11,  1901. 


BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 


The  Aurora,  Elgin  and  Chicago  Railway  Company, 
vs. 

The  -Suburban   Railroad    Company,    Chicago    Terminal    Transfer   Rr  R.    Co. 
The  Lake  Street  Elevated  R.  R.  Co.  and  The  Chicago  &  Harlem  Ry.  Co. 


To  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  of  the  State  of  Illinois: 

Your  petitioner,  The  Aurora,  Elgin  &  Chicago  Railway  Company,  respect- 
fully represents  unto  your  honorable  board,  that  it  is  a  railroad  corporation 
organized  and  existing  under  the  provisions  of  an  Act  of  the  Legislature  of 
the  State  of  'Illinois,  relating  to  the  incorporation  of  railroad  companies,  ap- 
proved and  in  force  March  1,  1872,  and  Acts  amendatory  thereof,  and  that  it 
has  the  right  as  such  railroad  corporation  to  acquire  property  for  and  to  con- 
struct and  operate  its  railroad,  from  the  city  of  Aurora,  Kane  county,  111., 
through  the  counties  of  Kane,  DuPage,  and  Cook,  and  the  cities,  towns  and 
villages  situated  in  such  counties,  to  the  city  of  Chicago,  Cook  county,  111., 
also  certain  branch  lines  of  railroad  to  the  city  of  Batavia  and  the  city  of 
Elgin,  111. 

Your  petitioner  further  represents  unto  your  honorable  board  that  it  has 
obtained  the  necessary  grants  and  ordinances  from  the  various  municipalities 
through  which  its  said  railroad  will  be  operated  and  maintained,  including 
the  village  of  Harlem,  the  town  of  Cicero,  and  the  city  of  Chicago,  all  in  Cook 
county,  Illinois;  that  it  has  purchased  and  acquired  the  private  property  for 
its  right  of  way  from  the  city  of  Aurora  to  said  city  of  Chicago,  including  its 
entire  right  of  way  through  the  village  of  Harlem,  the  town  of  Cicero  and 
into  the  city  of  Chicago,  with  the  exception  that  it  has  not  yet  acquired  the 
right  to  cross  the  private  right  of  way  and  tracks  of  the  respondent,  the  Chi- 
cago Terminal  Transfer  Railroad  Company,  in  the  village  of  Harlem.  Cook 
county,  111.,  at  the  location  designated  upon  the  maps  hereto  attached  and 


20 

hereinafter  referred  to  as  "Crossing  No.  1;"  said  tracks  of  respondent,  the 
Chicago  Terminal  Transfer  Railroad  Company,  at  said  location  being  oper- 
ated by  the  respondent,  the  Suburban  Railroad  Company,  under  lease. 

Your  petitioner  further  represents  unto  your  honorable  board  that  said 
respondents  severally  claim  to  be  railroad  corporations,  organized  and  exist- 
ing under  the  same  Acts  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  as  peti- 
tioner; that  in  the  construction  and  maintenance  of  petitioner's  railroad  it 
will  be  necessary  for  it  to  cross  at  grade  at  three  points,  the  lines  of  railway 
operated  by  respondent,  the  Suburban  Railroad  Company,  with  two  or  more 
tracks,  and  to  hang  overhead  and  place  underground  the  necessary  wires, 
connections  and  apparatus,  for  the  operation  of  the  same,  and  that  for  the 
purpose  of  more  particularly  describing  the  location  and  surroundings  of 
such  crossings,  your  petitioner  attaches  hereto  and  makes  a  part  hereof,  a 
blue  print  map,  marked  "Exhibit  A"  upon  which  the  route  of  petitioner  is 
colored  yellow  and  the  particular  points  of  crossing  in  question,  are  within 
red  rings  designated  respectively  as  "Crossing  No.  1,"  "Crossing  No.  2,"  and 
"Crossing  No.  3." 

Your  petitioner  further  represents  unto  your  honorable  board  that  "Cross- 
ing No.  1"  occurs  at  the  point  east  of  Concordia  cemetery  and  just  north  of 
Harrison  street  if  extended,  in  the  village  of  Harlem,  Cook  county,  Illinois, 
where  petitioner  intersects  the  branch  line  of  the  Chicago  Terminal  Transfer 
Railroad  company,  which  branch  line  of  said  respondent  extends  from  Ran- 
dolph street  southerly  to  Harrison  street  if  extended,  and  thence  easterly 
along  the  line  of  Harrison  street  if  extended  to  Desplaines  avenue,  and  con- 
sists of  a  single  track  with  one  side  track  or  siding  at  the  point  where  peti- 
tioner proposes  to  cross  the  same  as  aforesaid;  that  said  branch  line  is  not 
operated  by  respondent,  the  Chicago  Terminal  Transfer  Railroad  Company  as 
a  steam  railroad,  but  is  being  operated  by  the  respondent,  the  Suburban 
Railroad  Company,  for  the  carriage  of  passengers  only  by  means  of  trolly 
cars;  said  respondent,  the  Suburban  Railroad  Company,  claiming  the  right 
to  so  operate  upon  said  tracks  by  virtue  of  a  lease  from  the  Chicago  Ter- 
minal Transfer  Railroad  Company. 

Your  petitioner  further  represents  unto  your  honorable  board  that  "Cross- 
ing No.  2"  as  designated  upon  "Exhibit  A,"  occurs  in  Harrison  street,  in 
the  town  of  Cicero,  Cook  county,  Illinois,  at  the  point  where  petitioner's 
railway  crosses  said  Harrison  street,  between  Oak  Park  avenue  and  Euclid 
avenue,  in  the  town  of  Cicero,  Cook  county,  Illinois. 

Your  petitioner  further  represents  unto  your  honorable  board  that  "Cross- 
ing No.  3"  occurs  at  the  point  in  West  Fifty-second  avenue  in  the  city  of 
Chicago,  111.,  where  petitioner's  railway  crosses  said  West  Fifty-second  ave- 
nue, between  Harrison  street  and  Flourney  street. 

Your  petitioner  further  represents  unto  your  honorable  board  that  said  re- 
spondent, The  Suburban  Railroad  Company,  is  operating  a  line  of  double 
track  street  railway  in  and  along  Harrison  street,  at  the  location  referred  to 
as  "Crossing  No.  2,"  and  is  likewise  operating  a  line  of  double  track  street 
railway  in  and  along  Fifty-second  avenue  at  the  location  herein  referred  to 
as  "Crossing  No.  3."  That  that  portion  of  said  respondent's  street  railway 
line  operated  at  Crossing  No.  2  is  now  in  the  town  of  Cicero,  Cook  county, 
Illinois,  and  that  that  portion  of  its  street  railway  operated  at  the  location 
designated  as  "Crossing  No.  3,"  is  now  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  111.,  but  that 
both  of  said  street  railway  lines  were  originally  in  the  town  of  Cicero,  Cook 
county,  Illinois,  and  respondent  claims  the  right  to  maintain  and  operate 
said  lines  of  street  railway,  under  grant  from  the  said  town  of  Cicero,  by 
an  ordinance  passed  July  19,  1885,  and  that  all  of  said  street  railway  lines 
are  operated  by  electric  trolly  cars. 

Your  petitioner  further  represents  unto  your  honorable  board  that  it  has 
caused  to  be  prepared  and  attached  hereto,  and  made  a  part  hereof,  a  blue 
print  map,  marked  "Exhibit  B,"  which  shows  in  detail  the  tracks  of  the 
respondent,  The  Chicago  Terminal  Transfer  Railroad  Company  operated  by 
respondent,  The  Suburban  Railroad  Company,  as  aforesaid,  at  the  location 
herein  referred  to  as  "Crossing  No.  1,"  and  the  manner  in  which  petitioner 
proposes  to  cross  the  same;  that  at  said  location  the  tracks  of  petitioner 
would  cross  the  single  track  of  the  Chicago  Terminal  Transfer  Railroad 


21 

Company,  and  would  cross  the  switch  and  siding  of  said  respondent  at  the 
southern  point  of  such  switch  or  siding,  and  it  would  be  necessary  for  peti- 
tioner to  lengthen  out  said  siding  so  as  to  carry  the  point  of  said  switch 
and  siding  over  the  proposed  tracks  of  petitioner,  and  petitioner  has  indicated 
on  said  blue  print  map,  marked  "Exhibit  B,"  by  dotted  lines,  the  proposed 
change  in  such  switch  and  siding;  that  "Exhibit  C"  and  "Exhibit  D,"  which 
are  also  attached  hereto  and  made  a  part  of  this  petition,  show  respectively 
in  detail  the  location  of  the  street  railway  tracks  of  respondent,  The  Subur- 
ban Railroad,  Company,  and  the  manner  in  which  petitioner  proposes  crossing 
same,  at  the  location  known  as  "Crossing  No.  2"  and  "Crossing  No.  3." 

Your  petitioner  further  represents  unto  your  honorable  board  that  the  only 
interest  which  the  respondent,  The  Chicago  Terminal  Transfer  Railroad  Com- 
pany has  in  this  proceeding  is  that  of  the  lessor  of  its  branch  line  of  railroad 
to  respondent,  The  Suburban  Railroad  Company,  at  the  location  known  as 
"Crossing  No.  1." 

Your  petitioner  further  represents  unto  your  honorable  board  that  the 
respondents,  The  Lake  Street  Elevated  Railroad  Company  and  The  Chicago 
&  Harlem  Railway  Company,  claim  to  have  some  interest  in  the  lines  of 
railway  operated  by  The  Suburban  Railway  Company,  the  precise  nature  of 
which,  however,  is  unknown  to  your  petitioner. 

Your  petitioner  further  represents  unto  your  honorable  board  that  it  pro- 
posed to  said  respondents  to  make  'said  three  crossings  at  its  own  expense, 
and  to  furnish  all  frogs,  special  work  and  materials  necessary  for  each  of  said 
crossings,  and  to  perform  all  the  labor  and  put  the  same  in  position,  and  to 
keep  up  and  maintain  such  crossings,  frogs,  special  work  and  materials,  and 
also  to  stop  its  cars  and  trains  before  attempting  to  go  over  said  crossings. 
And  while  the  proposed  place  and  mode  of  crossing  by  your  petitioner,  in 
each  of  said  three  instances,  would  not  unnecessarily  impede  and  endanger 
travel  or  transportation,  yet  said  respondents  object  to  the  places  and  modes 
of  crossing  proposed  by  your  petitioner  aforesaid. 

Wherefore  your  petitioner  prays  that  this  honorable  board  will  give  notice 
to  the  said  Suburban  Railway  Company,  the  Chicago  Terminal  Transfer  Rail- 
road Company,  the  Lake  Street  Elevated  Railway  Company  and  the  Chicago 
&  Harlem  Railway  Company,  all  of  which  are  made  respondents  hereto,  and 
proceed  to  view  the  sites  of  said  several  crossings,  and  upon  investigation 
and  hearing  pursuant  to  the  statutes  and  to  the  rules  and  practices  of  this 
honorable  board,  in  such  cases  made  and  provided,  make  such  order  with 
reference  to  the  place,  mode  and  manner  of  crossing  at  the  three  particular 
points  referred  to  in  this  petition  and  its  exhibits,  as  to  this  honorable  board 
shall  seem  meet  and  proper,  and  for  such  other  relief  as  may  be  appropriate. 

THE  AURORA,  ELGIN  &  CHICAGO  RAILWAY  COMPANY, 

By  F.  B.  BICKNELL,  Manager. 
ALBFRT  J.  HOPKINS, 
S.  P.  SHOPE, 

Solicitors. 


22 
BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 


The  Aurora,  Elgin  &  Chicago  Railway  Company, 
vs. 

The   Suburban   Railroad   Co.,   Chicago   Terminal   Transfer  Co.,   Lake   Street 
Elevated  R.  R.  Co.,  and  the  Chicago  &  Harlem  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  for  Three  Crossings,  February,  1902.    -. 

APPEARANCES : 

SHOPE,  MATHISS,  ZANE  &  WEBBER;  HOPKINS,  DOLPH  &  SCOTT, 

for  Petitioner. 

CLABENCE  A.  KNIGHT,  for  the  Lake  Street  Elevated  R.  R.  Co. 
JESSE  BARTON,  for  the  Chicago  Terminal  Transfer  Co. 


The  petition  in  this  case  alleges,  and  it  is  conceded  by  the  respondents,  that 
all  of  said  companies  are  railroad  companies  within  the  meaning  of  the 
statute,  and  that  this  board  has  jurisdiction  of  the  companies  and  of  the 
subject  matter.  The  only  question  then  for  consideration  is  the  question  of 
crossing. 

Crossing  No.  1  is  the  crossing  of  the  petitioners'  tracks  over  the  tracks  of 
the  Chicago  Terminal  Transfer  Co.,  at  a  point  on  the  east  side  of  the  Con- 
cordia  cemetery,  just  north  of  Harrison  street,  if  extended.  This  crossing  is 
within  a  few  hundred  feet  of  the  end  of  the  track  of  the  Chicago  Terminal 
Transfer  Co.,  which  is  a  single  track,  and  the  evidence  in  this  case  shows 
that  at  the  present  time  there  are  very  few  cars  operated  on  said  track  and 
very  few  people  ride  on  the  cars  over  the  proposed  place  of  crossing.  This 
board  has  viewed  the  place  of  crossing  and  has  taken  evidence,  which  is 
given  very  fully  in  the  record,  as  to  the  location  of  the  ground,  and  from  the 
evidence  taken,  as  well  as  from  the  observation  of  the  commission  at  the  time 
of  viewing  the  proposed  place  of  crossing,  it  seems  certain  that  there  is  no 
special  reason  for  an  overhead  crossing  at  this  place  at  present.  It  is  on 
a  very  level  piece  of  ground,  with  nothing  to  obstruct  the  view  for  several 
hundred  feet  each  way,  and  very  few  cars  operated  over  the  road  of  either 
company  at  present;  and  while  this  commission  very  much  desires  that  all 
railroad  crossings  should  be  made  overhead  or  under  highway  crossings, 
from  the  evidence  and  the  surroundings  in  this  case  it  is  very  clear  that  it 
would  be  a  great  hardship  on  a  new  company  to  put  an  overhead  crossing 
at  this  place,  and  in  our  opinion  it  is  not  necessary  at  the  present  time,  and 
should  it  at  any  future  time  become  necessary,  this  commission  will  retain 
the  right  by  the  order  in  this  case  to  order  an  overhead  crossing. 

Crossing  No.  2  is  the  proposed  crossing  near  Harrison  street  in  the  town  of 
Cicero,  Cook  county,  Illinois,  of  the  Suburban  Railroad  Company,  where  the 
said  company  is  operating  a  double  track  railway  in  and  along  said  Harrison 
street.  This  proposed  crossing  crosses  the  tracks  of  the  Suburban  Company 
where  they  are  used  very  frequently  by  cars  on  each  track  running  in  oppo- 
site directions  and  hauling  a  great  many  passengers.  During  the  racing 
season  they  run  a  great  many  cars  to  the  race-tracks  and  haul  thousands  of 
passengers  each  way  every  day.  While  this  is  on  a  very  level  piece  of  ground 
and  nothing  to  obstruct  the  view  from  either  side,  on  account  of  the  great 
amount  of  travel  on  the  Suburban  Railroad  tracks,  in  our  opinion  it  is  neces- 
sary to  have  an  overhead  crossing,  and  that  a  grade  crossing  will  unneces- 
sarily impede  and  endanger  the  property  of  the  respondent  company  and  the 
lives  of  its  patrons,  and  for  that  reason  the  order  in  this  case  will  be  made  so 
that  an  overhead  crossing  will  be  built  at  crossing  No.  2. 


23 

Crossing  No.  3,  which  is  on  Fifty-second  street,  where  the  Aurora,  Elgin 
&  Chicago  Ry.  Co.,  petitioners,  propose  to  cross  the  Suburban  Company's 
tracks,  is  within  a  very  short  distance  of  where  the  ordinance  of  the  town  of 
Harlem  provides  that  the  Aurora,  Elgin  &  Chicago  Railway  Company  shall 
come  to  grade  to  connect  with  the  Metropolitan  road,  and  if  this  commission 
should  order  an  overhead  crossing,  it  would  mean  an  abandonment  of  their 
proposed  connection  and  would  work  a  forfeiture  of  the  franchise  to  the 
Aurora,  Elgin  &  Chicago  Ry.  Co.  through  the  town  of  Harlem.  We  regret  very 
much  that  the  location  and  grade  of  the  Metropolitan  road  is  not  such  that 
the  Aurora,  Elgin  &  Chicago  Ry.  Co.  could  connect  with  it  by  an  overhead 
elevated  connection  and  thus  put  in  an  overhead  crossing  on  Fifty-second 
street,  but  in  view  of  the  fact  that  it  is  on  a  very  level  piece  of  ground  and 
nothing  to  obstruct  the  view,  and  the  further  fact  that  the  ordinance  granting 
the  franchise  to  the  company  through  the  town  of  Harlem  provides  that 
within  twenty  years  from  the  granting  of  the  franchise  the  said  railway  com- 
pany shall  elevate  its  tracks,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  there  is  no  present 
necessity  for  an  overhead  crossing  beyond  what  there  is  at  any  other  crossing 
on  the  open  prairie,  and  the  order  in  this  case  will  provide  for  an  interlocker 
to  be  put  in  on  Fifty-second  street  crossing  No.  3  and  to  be  operated  by  the 
Aurora,  Elgin  &  Chicago  Railway  Company,  and  that  at  any  timte  hereafter 
when,  in  the  opinion  of  this  commission,  it  is  necessary  to  have  an  overhead 
crossing,  that  this  commission  reserves  the  right  to  order  the  same,  and  the 
company  accepting  the  right  to  cross  at  grade  accepts  it  on  the  above  condi- 
tions, that  whenever  ordered  to  put  in  an  overhead  crossing  by  the  then 
Railroad  Commission  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  that  they  shall  do  so  at  their 
own  expense  within  a  reasonable  time,  to  be  fixed  by  the  commission. 


The  Aurora,  Elgin  &  Chicago  Ry.  Co., 
vs. 

The  Suburban  Railroad  Co.,  The  Lake  Street  Elevated  R.  R.  Co.,  and  the 
Chicago  Terminal  Transfer  R.  R.  Co. 

Petition  for  Crossings. 


And  now,  on  the  21st  day  of  February,  A.  D.  1902,  come  the  petitioner  in 
this  cause,  by  Shope,  Mathis,  Zane  &  Webber  and  Hopkins,  Dolph  &  Scott, 
its  attorneys,  and  the  Suburban  Railroad  Company,  and  the  Lake  Street 
Elevated  Railroad  Company,  by  Clarence  A.  Knight,  their  attorney,  and  the 
respondent,  The  Chicago  Terminal  Transfer  Company,  by  Jesse  Barton,  its 
attorney,  and  the  commission  now  determines  that  it  has  full  jurisdiction 
over  the  parties  and  subject  matter  hereof,  and  the  commission  having 
listened  to  the  testimony  produced  by  the  parties  hereto,  and  fully  examined 
the  exhibits  and  listened  to  the  argument  of  counsel  representing  the  respec- 
tive parties  hereto,  and  now  being  fully  advised  in  the  premises  find  as 
follows : 

The  said  petitioner  and  the  respondents  will,  for  convenience,  be  herein- 
after designated  as  follows: 

The  petitioner — "Aurora  Company." 

The  Suburban  Railroad  Company — "Suburban  Company." 
The  Lake  Street  Elevated  Company — "Elevated  Company." 
The  Chicago  Terminal  Transfer  Company — "Terminal  Company." 
A.    That  the  petitioner  filed  herein  its  petition  to  cross  the  lines  of  railroad 
of  the  respondents,  the  Suburban  Company,  Elevated  Company  and  the  Ter- 
minal Company  at  the  points  of  crossing  shown  on  "Exhibit  A"  submitted 


34 

with  said  petition  and  indicated  at  said  points  and  numbered  thereon  as  Xos. 
1,  2  and  3 ;  that  at  the  hearing  of  this  cause  the  Aurora  Company  changed  the 
point  of  crossing  No.  1,  as  shown  and  indicated  by  the  blue  print  hereto 
attached  and  marked  "Exhibit  E." 

B.  That  the  Terminal  Company  is  the  owner  of  and  the  Suburban  Com- 
pany the  lessee  of  the  railroad  at  point  of  crossing  marked  No.  1,  as  shown 
on  "Exhibit  E,"  and  that  the  Elevated  Company  is  the  lessee  of  the  Subur- 
ban Company  of  said  railroad  at  crossing  No.  1. 

C.  That  the  Suburban  Company  is  the  owner  of  the  railroad  at  crossings 
Nos.  2  and  3,  said  railroad  at  crossing  No.  2  being  subject  to  a  lease  to  the 
Elevated  Company. 

D.  That  the  proposed  manner  of  crossing  at  No.  2  by  the  Aurora  Company, 
as  shown  in  their  petition,  would  make  said  crossing  dangerous  and  would 
impede  travel  and  transportation  upon  the  said  line  of  railroad  of  the  Subur- 
ban company,   and   that  objection   has  been  made   to  the  mode  of  crossing 
proposed  by  the  petitioner,  and  that  the  petitioner  has  applied  to  this  com- 
mission to  prescribe  the  place  where  and  the  manner  in  which  said  crossings 
Nos.  1,  2  and  3  shall  be  made  and  the  commission  having  viewed  the  ground 
at  crossings  Nos.  1,  2  and  3  and  given  all  parties  interested  an  opportunity  to 
be  heard,  and  having  due  regard  for  the  safety  of  life  and  property,  does 
hereby  make  and  order  as  follows: 

First — That  said  Aurora  Company  shall  be  permitted  and*  is  hereby  author- 
ized to  cross  the  track  or  tracks  and  right  of  way  of  the  Terminal  Company 
and  the  Suburban  Company  and  the  Elevated  Company  as  lessees  at  crossing 
No.  1  at  the  place  and  in  the  manner  and  mode  shown  in  "Exhibit  E,"  subject 
to  the  provisions,  conditions  and  limitations  hereinafter  set  forth  with  refer- 
ence to  said  crossing. 

(a)  The  necessary  frogs,  switches  and  appurtenances  shall  be  put  in  at 
said  point  of  crossing  No.  1  solely  at  the  expense  of  the  Aurora  Company, 
under  the  supervision  and  direction  of  the  engineer  of  the  Suburban  Com- 
pany.    Said  crossing  shall  be  so  placed  at  No.  1  as  not  to  interfere  with  the 
operation  of  the  cars  of  the  Suburban  Company  or  the  Elevated  Company 
over  the  tracks  during  the  progress  of  said  work.    Provided  the  said  crossing 
at  No.  1  shall  be  what  is  commonly  known  as  a  standard  double  track  cross- 
ing with  an  open  throat  for  both  the  Aurora  Company  and  the  Suburban 
Company. 

(b)  The  Aurora  Company  having  stated  before  the  commission  that  it 
intended  to  operate  its  said  railroad  by  electricity,  adopting  a  third  rail  sys- 
tem for  said  purpose,  such  third  or  live  rail  to  so  operate  said  railroad  may 
be  placed  with  protection  boards  upon  the  right  of  way  of  the  Suburban 
Company  and  the  Terminal  Company  at  any  point  not  nearer  than  ten  feet 
of  the  outer  rails  of  the  track  of  the  Suburban  Company  at  said  point  of 
crossing,  as  the  same  now  exists  or  may  hereafter  be  laid. 

(c)  The  Aurora  Company  shall   have  the  right  to   place  and  bury  its 
electric  wires  underneath  the  right  of  way  of  the  Suburban  Company  at  said 
crossing  No.  1,  within  a  point  not  exceeding  three  feet  outside  of  the  two 
tracks  of  the  Aurora  Company,  and  shall  so  place  said  electric  wires  in  con- 
duits, or  in  such  manner  as  may  be  directed  by  the  Suburban  Company,  so 
as  not  to   interfere  in  any  manner  whatsoever  with  the  operation   of  the 
railroad  of  the  Suburban  Company  and  Terminal  Company  at  said  point. 

(d)  The  Aurora  Company  shall  pay  to  or  keep  said  Suburban  Company, 
said  Elevated  Company  and  said  Terminal  Company  harmless  from  any  loss 
or  damage  to  persons  or  property  that  may  occur  or  happen  at  said  crossing 
by  reason  of  the  grant  of  this  permit. 

(e)  The  Aurora  Company  shall  at  all  times  and  on  all  occasions  before 
proceeding  to  cross  the  track  or  tracks  of  the  Suburban  Company  at  crossing 
No.  1,  from  either  direction,   stop  its  cars  or  trains  within   50  feet  of  the 
point  of  crossing  and  send  some  fit  and  competent  person  to  see  that  the 
crossing  is  free  and  clear  and  safe  for  the  passage  of  the  cars  or  trains  of 
the  Aurora  Company  or  its  lessees,  and  in  no  case  shall  said  Aurora  Com- 
pany have  the  prior  right  of  way  over  said  crossing,  and  in  all  cases  the 
Aurora  Company's  cars  or  trains  shall  refrain  from  crossing  at  said  point 


25 

when  Suburban  car  or  a  car  of  its  lessee  is  proceeding  toward  said  crossing 
and  within  two  hundred  (200)  feet  thereof. 

(f)  The  Aurora  Company  shall  at  all  times  keep  and  maintain  said  cross- 
ing in  perfect  condition  and  repair  and  pay  the  whole  and  entire  expense  and 
cost  thereof,  and  in  case  it  shall  fail  so  to  do,  the  Suburban  company  or  the 
Terminal  company,  or  their  respective  lessees,  shall  be  authorized  so  to  do 
and  the  Aurora  company  shall  promptly  pay  on  demand  the  entire  cost  and 
expense  thereof. 

(g)  Said  point  of  crossing  at  No.  1  shall  be  considered  and  treated  as  a 
junction  of  the  said  two  railroads. 

(h)  The  detail  and  drawings  for  said  crossing  No.  1  shall  be  submitted  to 
the  engineer  of  the  Suburban  company  for  his  approval  before  the  same  shall 
be  placed  at  the  crossing:  Provided,  In  case  the  engineer  of  the  said  Subur- 
ban company  shall  not  approve  said  plans  or  drawings  within  one  day  after 
submission  to  him,  the  same  shall  then  be  subject  to  the  approval  of  the 
chairman  of  this  commission. 

(i)  The  foregoing  provisions  with  reference  to  crossing  No.  1  are  each  and 
all  subject  to  the  right  of  the  commission  hereafter  to  order  at  said  point, 
such  other  overhead  crossing  or  protection  as  it  may  deem  advisable  at  the 
expense  of  the  Aurora  company. 

(j)  In  case  the  Suburban  company  shall  see  fit  to  change  the  alignment  of 
its  present  track  or  tracks  the  entire  expense  of  so  changing  the  same  shall 
be  borne  by  the  Suburban  company. 

Second — That  said  Aurora  company  shall  be  permitted  to  and  is  hereby 
authorized  to  place  at  crossing  No.  2  a  temporary  double  track  crossing, 
subject  to  the  provisions  as  hereinafter  contained,  with  reference  to  said 
crossing  No.  2. 

(a)  Said  crossing  No.  2  shall  be  constructed  and  placed  at  said  point  of 
crossing,  subject  to  the  same  terms,  provisions,  conditions,  limitations  and 
restrictions  as  herein  contained  with  reference  to  crossing  No.  1. 

(b)  The  said  temporary  crossing  No.  2  shall  be  so  placed  and  constructed 
as  not  to  interfere  with  the  construction  of  an  overhead  crossing  as  herein 
provided. 

(c)  The  foregoing  provisions  with  reference  to  temporary  crossing  No.  2 
are  each  and  all  subject  to  the  provisions  hereinafter  contained  with  refer- 
ence to  the  overhead  crossing  at  said  point. 

Third — The  said  Aurora  company  shall  be  and  is  hereby  permitted  to  cross 
the  Suburban  company  at  crossing  No.  3  subject  to  the  following  provisions, 
conditions,  limitations  and  restrictions,  viz.: 

(a)  The  said  Aurora  company  shall  place  at  said  crossing  No.  3  a  half 
interlocking  device  by  which  the  right-of-way  shall  be  given  to  the  Suburban 
cars  or  trains  over  said  point  of  crossing,  and  the  Aurora  company's  cars  or 
trains,  or  its  lessees,  shall  at  all  times  stop  to  be  interlocked  before  proceed- 
ing across  said  crossing,  and  such  interlocking  device  to  be  so  constructed  as 
to  derail  the  cars  of  the  Aurora  company. 

The  plans  and  specifications  for  such  interlocking  device  at  said  point  of 
crossing  to  be  submitted  to  the  engineer  of  the  Suburban  company  and  to 
the  consulting  engineer  of  this  commission  for  their  approval,  and  in  case 
they  shall  not  approve  the  same  within  five  days  after  such  presentation,  then 
the  same  shall  be  referred  to  the  chairman  of  this  commission  for  his  ap- 
proval. 

(b)  The  Aurora  company  shall  not  operate  its  cars  or  trains  over  said 
crossing  until  said  interlocking  device  shall  have  been  first  installed:   Pro- 
vided, said  Aurora  company  shall  have  the  right  to  cross  at  said  crossing 
temporarily,  until  the  installation  of  said  interlocking  device,  as  hereinafter 
provided,  subject  to  all  the  provisions  with  reference  to  crossing  No.  1. 

(c)  Said  Aurora  company  shall  be  liable  to  the  Suburban  company  for  all 
loss  or  damage  to  persons  or  property  that  may  occur  by  reason  of  the  per- 
mission for  said  grade  crossing,  as  aforesaid,  at  said  point  No.  3. 

(d)  The  Suburban  cars  or  trains  shall  at  all  times  have  the  preference  of 
the  right-of-way  over  said  point  of  crossing  No.  3. 


26 

(e)  In  case  a  Suburban  car  or  train,  or  a  car  or  train  of  its  lessee,  shall  be 
proceeding  northwardly,  and  on  the  viaduct,  about  nine  hundred  (900)  feet 
south  of  said  point  of  crossing,  the  cars  or  trains  of  the  Aurora  company  shall 
be  interlocked  until  such  car  or  train  shall  safely  pass  said  crossing:  Pro- 
vided, said  Aurora  company,  in  order  to  avoid  waiting  for  a  car  or  train  of 
the  Suburban  company,  or  its  lessee,  as  provided  in  said  clause  (e),  may 
install  a  full  interlocking  device,  in  which  case  the  foregoing  provision  as  to 
clause  (e)  shall  not  apply. 

Fourth — It  is  further  ordered  that  said  Aurora  company  shall,  on  or  before 
Jan.  1,  1903,  as  a  condition  of  granting  this  permission  to  construct  a  tem- 
porary crossing  at  No.  2,  cause  to  be  constructed  at  said  point  an  overhead 
crossing  in  such  a  manner  that  the  bottom  or  lower  chord  of  the  girders  sup- 
porting the  tracks  over  the  tracks  of  the  Suburban  company  shall  be  14  feet 
above  the  top  of  the  rails  of  the  track  or  tracks  of  the  Suburban  company 
as  now  laid  and  under  the  general  plans  and  specifications  herewith  submit- 
ted and  approved  by  the  commission  and  made  a  part  of  this  order,  and  here- 
with filed  with  the  commission  as  "Exhibit  Z." 

Provided,  that  while  and  during  the  time  said  Aurora  company  shall  be 
engaged  in  the  work  of  elevating  said  tracks  at  said  point  it  shall  not  interfere 
with  the  operation  of  the  cars  or  trains  of  the  Suburban  company,  or  its  les- 
sees, over  said  track  at  crossing  No.  2,  and  that  when  the  work  shall  have 
been  completed,  or  prior  thereto,  the  tracks  of  the  Suburban  company  may  be 
changed  sufficiently  so  as  to  leave  a  clear  head  room  of  14  feet;  such  change 
of  location  to  be  made  as  hereinafter  provided:  Provided,  upon  notice  by  the 
Aurora  company  that  it  is  ready  to  proceed  with  the  erection  of  said  over- 
head crossing,  the  cars  or  trains  of  the  Suburban  company,  or  its  lessee,  shall 
cease  operating  at  said  point  of  crossing  No.  2  during  the  progress  of  said 
work,  not  to  exceed  a  period  of  30  days:  Provided,  however,  the  Aurora  com- 
pany shall  not  give  such  notice  prior  to  Nov.  1,  1902,  and  in  no  event  shall 
the  operation  of  the  cars  of  the  Suburban  company  be  interfered  with  for  a 
longer  period  of  time  than  30  days. 

(a)  The  Aurora  company  shall  at  all  times,  at  its  own  expense,  keep  and 
maintain  in  good  repair  and  condition  the  said  overhead  structure. 

(b)  The  Suburban  company  and  the  Terminal  company  shall  have  the 
right  to  attach  underneath  said  overhead  structure  all  such  electric  wires, 
cables,  electric  feeders  and  other  electric  appurtenances  as  it  may  deem  ad- 
visable, and  use  the  said  overhead  structure  so  far  as  it  may  deem  necessary 
for  the  purpose  of  operating  said  railroad. 

(c)  The  Suburban  company  shall,  and  all  parties  hereto  consent,  change 
its  present  tracks  and  right-of-way  at  crossing  No.  2  in  the  manner  shown  on 
general  plans  herewith  submitted  for  such  overhead  crossing,  and  shall  make 
such  change  on  or  before  Nov.  1,  1902.     The  top  rails  of  the  track  when  so 
relaid  to  be  at  the  same  height  as  the  present  rails  are  now  laid,  so  as  to  leave 
the  clear  head  room  between  the  tops  of  the  rails  when  so  laid  and  the  over- 
head structure  to  be  erected  by  the  Aurora  company  14  feet,  as  herein  pre- 
scribed.    Said  work  of  so  changing  the  Suburban  company's  tracks   must 
be  done  prior  to  the  time  when  the  Aurora  company  is  ready  to  proceed  with 
the  work  of  said  overhead  crossing  at  No.  2.     The  Suburban  company  to 
have  the  right  to  construct,  maintain  and  operate  its  road  over  said  changed 
location,  as  shown  in  said  plans  indicating  such  changed  location  as  ordered 
by  the  commission,  and  shall  at  all  times  have  sufficient  clearance  for  the 
passage  of  its  cars  over  its  tracks  along,  upon  and  over  the  right-of-way  where 
said  tracks  are  laid  at  said  new  location. 

(d)  The  said  overhead  work  to  be  completed  on  or  before  Jan.  1,  1903,  un- 
less the  chairman  of  this  commission  shall,  for  good  cause,  extend  the  time 
of  completion  or  the  contractors  shall  be  delayed  by  strikes,  accidents  or 
other  causes  interfering  with  the  progress  of  the  work. 

(e)  In  case  said  Aurora  company  shall  fail  to  comply  with  any  one  of  the 
terms,  conditions,  limitations  and  restrictions  contained  in  this  order  as  to 
such  temporary  crossing  at  No.  2,  or  shall  fail  to  complete  the  overhead  cross- 
ing as  herein  provided  and  within  the  time  as  herein  fixed  for  crossing  No.  2, 


27 

or  shall  fail  to  place  said  interlocking  device  at  crossing  No.  3  before  Oct.  1, 
1902,  then  the  Suburban  company  shall  have  and  is  hereby  authorized  to  take 
up  and  remove  the  said  crossings' of  the  Aurora  company  and  all  the  rails, 
ties  and  appurtenances  upon  the  right-of-way  of  the  Suburban  company  at 
either  crossing  Nos.  2  or  3. 

Fifth — The  respondents  hereby,  before  this  commission,  agree  that  if  the 
Aurora  company  shall  faithfully  and  fully  carry  out  and  perform  each  and 
every  of  its  obligations,  duties  and  conditions  in  this  order  prescribed,  that 
they  will  waive  all  proceedings  to  acquire  said  right  of  crossing  under  the 
Eminent  Domain  law  of  this  State;  otherwise,  in  case  the  Aurora  company 
shall  fail  to  comply  in  every  respect  with  this  order,  then  it  shall  acquire  the 
right  to  maintain  said  crossing  by  virtue  of  condemnation  proceedings. 

Sixth — The  commission  hereby  reserves  to  itself  jurisdiction  of  all  the  par- 
ties and  subject  matter  hereof  until  the  full  completion  of  the  matters 
and  things  set  forth  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  into  full  force  and  effect  the 
terms  and  provisions  of  this  order,  and  the  right  to  enter  upon,  by  its  agents 
or  employes,  the  right  of  way  of  the  respondents  herein  and  of  the  Aurora 
company  after  the  completion  of  any  part  of  said  work  herein  prescribed  and 
take  up  and  remove  the  same  in  case  the  parties  hereto  shall  in  any  respect 
fail  to  comply  with  the  order  and  direction  of  the  commission  with  reference 
thereto,  either  as  herein  prescribed  or  as  prescribed  in  the  future.  All  ex- 
pense of  so  doing  to  be  borne  by  the  party  at  fault  in  respect  to  the  matter 
to  be  so  determined. 

Seventh — All  terms,  provisions  and  conditions  of  this  order  shall  apply 
to  and  be  binding  upon  the  respective  successors,  lessees  and  assigns  of  all 
the  parties  hereto. 

Eighth — The  Aurora  company  shall  have  the  right  to  erect  over  the  right 
of  way  at  the  respective  crossings  Nos.  1,  2  and  3,  all  wires,  poles  and  ap- 
pliances it  may  deem  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  conveying  electric  current 
to  operate  its  said  railroad,  but  all  wires  shall  be  at  least  seven  (7)  feet  above 
any  wires  the  respondents  may  have  at  said  points  and  shall  not  be  con- 
structed in  any  manner  so  as  to  interfere  with  the  operation  of  the  cars  of 
the  respondents  over  said  crossings. 

Ninth — It  is  understood  that  "Exhibit  E"  attached  to  said  order  shows  the 
track  of  the  Terminal  and  Suburban  companies  shifted  eastwardly  from  their 
present  location.  It  is  understood  and  agreed  that  when  the  Aurora  company 
lays  the  crossings  and  special  work  called  for  by  "Exhibit  E"  it  shall  have 
the  right  to  cut  the  track  of  said  Suburban  company  as  now  located  and  the 
Suburban  company  shall  then  shift  its  track  to  comply  with  the  location 
shown  by  "Exhibit  E." 

Tenth — It  is  further  ordered  that  the  petitioner  pay  forthwith  the  cost  of 
this  proceeding,  which  said  cost  shall  be  paid  prior  to  the  said  Aurora  com- 
pany entering  upon  or  laying  its  temporary  tracks  as  herein  provided  and 
which  said  cost  shall  be  such  sums  as  the  commission  may  allow  to  the 
parties  to  this  proceeding,  and  including  the  cost  of  the  commission  itself. 

Approved:  J.  S.  NEVILLE, 

Chairman. 

The  Aurora,  Elgin  &  Chicago  Ry.  Co.,  by  L.  J.  Wolf,  President. 
Chicago  Terminal  Transfer  R.  R.  Co..  by  Jesse  Barton,  its  General  Attorney. 
The  Suburban  Railroad  Co.,  by  Clarence  A.  Knight,  General  Counsel. 
The  Lake  Street  Elevated  R.  R.  Co..by  Clarence  A.  Knight,  President. 
The  Suburban  R.  R.  Co.,  by  L.  S.  Owsley,  President. 


28 

The  Aurora,   Elgin  &  Chicago  Railway  Company, 
vs. 

The  Suburban  Railroad  Company,  the  Lake  Street  Elevated  R.  R.  Co.,  and 
the  Chicago   Terminal  Transfer  R.   R.   Co. 

Petition  for  Grossing. 

WHEREAS,  on  the  21st  day  of  February,  A.  D.  1902,  the  Board  of  Railroad 
and  Warehouse  Commissioners  of  the  State  of  Illinois  entered  an  order  in 
the  above  entitled  cause  relating,  among  other  matters,  to  the  crossing  of  the 
Aurora,  Elgin  &  Chicago  Railway  company  and  the  Suburban  Railway  com- 
pany at  the  intersection  of  the  Aurora,  Elgin  &  Chicago  railway  with  52nd 
avenue  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  Cook  county,  Illinois,  in  and  by  which  said 
order  it  was  provided  that  the  petitioning  company  should  install  an  inter- 
locking device  at  said  crossing  which  should  be  subject  to  the  approval  of 
the  Suburban  company  and  of  the  consulting  engineer  of  this  commission; 
and  in  case  said  parties  were  unable  to  agree  upon  the  plan  of  such  inter- 
locker  it  was  ordered  that  the  chairman  of  this  commission  should  approve 
of  such  interlocker,  and 

WHEREAS,  the  parties  have  been  unable  to  agree  upon  all  details  of  such 
interlocking  device, 

Now  therefore,  I,  James  S.  Neville,  chairman  of  the  Railroad  and  Ware- 
house Commission,  upon  full  investigation  of  said  matter,  order  and  adjudge 
that  the  attached  blue  print  and  plan  of  the  interlocking  device  at  said  point 
of  crossing  marked  "Exhibit  A"  and  made  a  part  hereof,  shall  be  and  the 
same  is  hereby  approved. 

It  is  further  ordered,  that  said  interlocking  device  specified  in  the  attached 
plan  and  in  this  order  shall  be  installed  and  in  operation  by  Dec.  1,  A.  D. 
1902,  provided,  however,  for  cause  shown,  said  time  may  be  extended  by  this 
commission. 

J.  S.  NEVILLE, 
Chairman. 


The  Aurora,  Elgin  &  Chicago  Railway  Company, 


The  Suburban  Railroad  Co.,  the  Lake  Street  Elevated  Railroad  Co.  and  the 
Chicago  Terminal  Transfer  R.  R.  Co. 

To  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  of  the  State  of  Illinois: 

Your  petitioner,  The  Aurora,  Elgin  &  Chicago  Railway  company,  respect- 
fully represents  to  your  honorable  board  — 

First  —  That  it  has  heretofore  filed  before  this  board  its  petition  asking  for 
certain  crossings  with  the  Suburban  Railroad  company  and  in  which  crossings 
the  I  ake  Street  Elevated  Railroad  company  and  the  Chicago  Terminal  Trans- 
fer Railroad  company  were  also  interested;  that  one  of  said  crossings  was 
known  in  the  proceeding  heretofore  had  before  this  board,  as  crossing  No. 
1,  and  occurred  between  this  company  and  the  Suburban  Railroad  company, 
at  the  point  of  crossing  in  Harlem,  Cook  county,  Illinois,  near  Concordia 
cemetery;  that  one  of  said  crossings  was  known  in  said  proceedings  hereto- 
fore had.  as  crossing  No.  2,  and  occurred  between  petitioner's  road  and  the 
Suburban  railroad  near  Harrison  street,  and  between  Euclid  avenue  and  Oak 
Park  avenue,  in  the  town  of  Cicero,  now  in  the  village  of  Oak  Park,  Illinois, 
and  that  the  other  crossing  involved  in  said  proceedings  has  been  known 
therein  as  crossing  No.  3,  and  occurred  at  the  point  of  crossing  between  the 
road  of  your  petitioner  and  the  Suburban  railroad  on  52nd  avenue,  between 
Harrison  street  and  Flournoy  street  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  Cook  county, 
Illinois. 


29 

Second — That  such  proceedings  were  had  in  the  matter  of  said  petition  for 
crossings,  and  that  on  the  21st  day  of  February,  A.  D.  1902,  your  honorable 
board  entered  an  order  providing  the  terms  and  conditions  upon  which  the 
crossings  aforesaid  should  be  made,  which  said  order  remains  of  record  with 
this  commission,  is  made  a  part  of  this  petition  and  to  which  reference  is 
hereby  made  for  greater  certainty. 

Third — That  in  and  by  said  order  it  was  provided  that  your  petitioner 
should  place  at  crossing  No.  3,  aforesaid,  a  one-half  interlocking  device,  by 
which  the  right  of  way  should  be  given  to  the  cars  and  trains  of  the  Suburban 
Railroad  company,  and  might,  at  its  election,  in  order  to  avoid  waiting  for 
such  cars  and  trains,  install  a  full  interlocking  device  at  said  crossing,  the 
plans  and  specifications  for  which  to  be  subject  to  the  approval  of  this  board. 

Fourth — That  your  petitioner  elected  to  install  a  full  interlocking  plant,  at 
said  crossing  No.  3,  that  plans  and  specifications  for  such  interlocker  were 
submitted  and  approved  by  the  said  Suburban  Railroad  company  and  the 
Metropolitan  West  Side  Elevated  railroad,  and  on  to-wit:  the  29th  day 
of  October,  A.  D.  1902,  were  approved  by  order  of  this  commission,  which 
remains  of  record  with  this  board  and  to  which  reference  is  hereby  made  for 
greater  certainty. 

Fifth — Your  petitioner  further  represents  that  said  interlocking  plant  was 
placed  in  operation,  as  between  the  lines  of  your  petitioner  the  Suburban 
Railroad  company  and  the  Metropolitan  West  Side  Elevated  railroad,  on 
Thursday,  the  6th  day  of  November,  A.  D.  1902,  at  12 : 00  o'clock  noon,  and  ever 
since  said  time  has  been  and  is  now  in  operation,  controlling  the  movement  of 
trains  of  said  several  railways  at  said  point  of  crossing. 

Sixth — Your  petitioner  further  represents  that  no  agreement  exists  between 
said  several  railway  companies,  interested  in  said  crossing,  to-wit:  Your 
petitioner,  the  Suburban  Railroad  company,  and  the  Metropolitan  West  Side 
Elevated  Railroad,  after  the  division  of  the  cost  of  operating  said  interlocking 
plant  and  that  your  petitioner  can  come  to  no  agreement  with  said  other 
railway  companies,  in  reference  thereto;  that  your  petitioner,  in  accordance 
with  said  order  of  this  board,  heretofore  entered  on  the  21st  day  of  February 
A.  D.  1902,  has  placed  said  interlocker  at  said  point,  and  will  maintain  the 
same,  but  that  none  of  said  orders,  heretofore  entered  by  this  commission, 
fix  or  determine  the  amount  or  proportion  which  said  several  railroad  com- 
panies shall  pay  towards  the  expenses  of  operating  said  plant,  and  that  it  is 
ready  and  willing  to  pay  its  just  proportion  of  said  operation. 

Seventh — Your  petitioner  further  represents  unto  this  honorable  board 
that  in  and  by  said  order  of  Feb.  21,  A.  D.  1902,  it  provided  that  the  Subur- 
ban Railroad  company  should  change  from  its  present  location,  at  crossing 
No.  2,  to  a  point  further  west,  on  or  before  Nov.  1,  1902,  the  particular  place 
of  such  new  location  being  shown  upon  Exhibit  "Z"  attached  to  said  order; 
that  such  new  location  by  the  Suburban  Railroad  company  would  require  it 
to  cross  Oak  Park  avenue,  in  the  village  of  Oak  Park,  111.,  at  a  point  between 
Harrison  (sometimes  called  Estella  street)  and  Harrison  place;  that  your 
petitioner  cut  its  rails  and  placed  in  position  necessary  frogs  and  special  work 
so  that  said  Suburban  Railroad  company  might  cross  your  petitioner's  tracks 
at  the  new  place  of  crossing  on  or  before  Nov.  1,  1902,  as  required  by  said 
order,  but  that  on  the  29th  day  of  October,  A.  D.  1902,  the  board  of  trustees 
of  the  village  of  Oak  Park,  111.,  passed  a  resolution  directing  the  village  at- 
torney to  take  such  legal  steps  as  might  be  necessary  to  prevent  the  Subur- 
ban Railroad  company  from  making  the  crossing  at  Oak  Park  avenue,  on  the 
ground  that  said  Suburban  Railroad  company  had  no  municipal  grant  there- 
for; that  said  board  of  trustees  thereupon  proceeded  in  a  body  to  said  Oak 
Park  avenue  crossing  and  tore  up  the  rails  and  ties  which  had  been  placed 
therein  by  said  Suburban  company,  and  a  part  of  the  special  work  which  had 
been  placed  therein  by  your  petitioner  for  the  benefit  of  said  Suburban  com- 
pany: that  on  the  following  day,  Oct.  30,  A.  D.  1902,  said  village  of  Oak 
Park  filed  an  intervening  petition  in  the  case  of  the  Chicago  Title  and  Trust 
Company  vs.  The  Suburban  Railroad  company,  pending  in  the  circuit  court 
within  and  for  Cook  county,  Illinois,  in  which  said  last  mentioned  cause  a  bill 


30 

had  been  filed  to  foreclose  a  trust  deed,  executed  by  said  Suburban  Railroad 
company,  securing  certain  bonds,  and  in  which  proceedings  a  receiver  was 
appointed;  that  upon  presentation  of  such  intervening  petition,  the  said  cir- 
cuit court  of  Cook  county,  Illinois,  Judge  Hanecy  presiding,  entered  an  order 
granting  leave  to  said  village  to  file  said  intervening  petition  making  said  vil- 
lage a  party  defendant  to  the  original  bill,  giving  it  leave  to  answer  the  same, 
etc.,  and  restraining'  the  receiver  and  persons  acting  under  him  from  pro- 
ceeding with  the  construction  at  the  new  location  across  Oak  Park  avenue; 
that  subsequently  said  village  of  Oak  Park  filed  its  answer  in  said  original 
cause,  and  a  cross  bill,  in  which  it  prays  that  an  injunction  may  issue  per- 
manently, restraining  the  said  Suburban  Railroad  company  from  crossing  at 
Oak  Park  avenue,  alleging  that  the  said  Suburban  Railroad  company  is  pro- 
ceeding without  any  municipal  authority  whatever,  etc.;  that  all  of  said 
proceedings  are  still  pending  and  undetermined  before  said  circuit  court  of 
Cook  county,  Illinois;  that  said  Suburban  Railroad  company  has  not  obtained 
any  municipal  grant  for  such  crossing,  and  insists  that  it  is  not  necessary  for 
it  to  secure  such  municipal  grant;  that  the  contentions  of  said  several  par- 
ties in  said  litigation  can  not,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  events,  be  deter- 
mined for  some  time  to  come. 

Eighth — Your  petitioner  further  represents  that  in  and  by  the  terms  of 
said  order,  it  was  provided  that  said  change  of  location  was  to  be  made  by 
the  said  |Suburban  Railroad  company,  before  your  petitioner  commenced  the 
construction  of  its  elevation  at  said  point,  and  that,  because  of  the  failure  of 
said  Suburban  company  to  make  the  change  in  its  location,  on  or  before 
Nov.  1,  1902,  as  provided  in  said  order,  your  petitioner  has  been  unable  to 
commence  with  or  proceed  with  its  construction  of  its  elevated  structure  at 
said  point. 

Ninth — That  in  and  by  said  order  of  Feb.  21,  A.  D.,  1902,  it  was  also  pro- 
vided that  the  work  of  your  petitioner  in  elevating  said  tracks  should  be 
completed  on  or  before  Jan.  1,  1903,  unless  the  chairman  of  this  commission 
should  for  good  cause,  extend  the  time  of  completion  or  there  should  be  de- 
lay by  strike,  accidents,  or  other  causes;  that  owing  to  the  fact  that  said 
Suburban  company  has  not  yet  placed  its  tracks  in  such  new  location,  and 
may  not  be  able  to  do  so  for  some  time  to  come,  it  will  be  wholly  impossible 
for  your  petitioner  to  complete  the  construction  of  said  elevated  structure  by 
Jan.  1,  1903. 

Your  petitioner  therefore  prays  that  a  hearing  may  be  had  before  this  com- 
mission, upon, the  question  of  the  amount  and  proportion  which  each  of  said 
companies,  to-wit:  Your  petitioner,  the  Suburban  Railroad  company,  and 
the  Metropolitan  West  Side  Elevated  railroad,  shall  pay  towards  the  opera- 
tion of  said  interlocking  device,  at  crossing  No.  3  by  short  day  be  fixed  by 
this  commission,  and  that  upon  such  hearing  this  commission  shall  order  and 
direct  the  proportions  which  each  company  shall  bear  and  pay  towards  such 
operation  expenses;  that  such  process  and  notice  may  issue  unto  the  said 
several  companies  as  shall  bring  them  before  this  commission,  and  that  this 
commission  will  extend  the  time  within  which  your  petitioner  shall  complete 
the  elevation  at  crossing  No.  2,  to  such  time  as  it  may  deem  just  and  proper 
and  that  it  will  enter  such  other  orders,  in  the  premises,  as  may  seem  for  the 
best  interests  of  all  parties  interested. 

THE  AURORA,  ELGIN  &  CHICAGO  R.  R.  Co. 

By  Fred  A.  Dolph,  its  Attorney. 
Hopkins,  Dolph  &  Scott, 
Shope,  Mathis,  Zane  &  Webber, 

Attorneys  for  Petitioner. 


The  Aurora,   Elgin  &   Chicago  Railway  Company, 
vs. 

The  Suburban  Railroad  Co.,  the  Lake  Street  Elevated  Railroad  Co.  and  the 
Chicago  Terminal  Transfer  R.  R.  Co. 


Petition  for  Crossings. 


And  now,  on  this  28th  day  of  November,  A.  D.,  1902,  said  cause  coming  on 
again  to  be  heard,  and  the  said  petitioner  appearing  in  this  cause  by  Shope, 
Mathis,  Zane  and  Weber,  and  Hopkins,  Dolph  &  Scott,  its  attorneys,  the 
respondent,  the  Surburban  Railroad  company  and  the  Lake  Street  Elevated 
Railroad  Co.,  by  Clarence  A.  Knight,  their  attorneey,  and  L.  S.  Owsley, 
receiver  of  the  Suburban  Railroad  Co.,  appearing  in  person  and  by  Clarence 
A.  Knight,  his  attorney,  and  the  respondent,  the  Chicago  Terminal  Transfer 
Railroad  Company  by  Jesse  Barton,  its  attorney;  and  it  also  appearing  to 
this  commission  that  the  Metropolitan  West  Side  Elevated  Railway  Co.  has 
appeared  herein  and  submitted  itself  to  the  jurisdiction  of  this  commission 
for  the  purpose  of  having  this  commission  fix  upon  the  portion  which  it 
should  pay  of  the  operation  of  the  interlocking  plant  at  52nd  avenue  between 
Harrison  street  and  Flooirnoy  street,  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  Illinois,  being 
the  point  of  crossing  heretofore  known  in  these  proceedings  as  crossing  No. 
3,  which  said  interlocking  plant  and  plan  thereof  as  has  heretofore  been  ap- 
proved by  this  commission;  and  it  further  appearing  to  the  commission  that 
by  order  hereof  entered 'on  the  21st  day  of  February,  A.  D.,  1902,  that  the 
question  of  the  division  of  the  cost  of  operation  of  the  interlocking  plant  at 
said  crossing  No.  3  was  not  determined  by  said  order;  and  it  also  appearing 
by  said  order  that  the  respondent,  the  Suburban  Railroad  company,  was 
required  to  change  its  tracks  and  right  of  way  at  crossing  No.  2  in  accord- 
ance with  the  general  plans  shown  as  "Exhibit  Z,"  and  attached  to  said 
order  and  that  said  work  of  so  changing  said  tracks  should  be  done  prior  to 
the  time  when  the  Aurora  company  was  ready  to  proceed  with  the  work  of 
the  overhead  structure  at  said  crossing  No.  2  required  in  said  order,  and  it 
further  appearing  to  the  commission  that  said  order  provided  that  the  over- 
head work  should  be  completed  by  said  petitioner  the  Aurora,  Elgin  & 
Chicago  Railway  company,  on  or  before  Jan.  1,  1903,  unless  the  chairman 
of  this  commission  should  have  good  cause  to  extend  the  time  of  completion 
or  the  contractor  should  be  delayed  by  strikes,  accident  or  other  causes  inter- 
fering with  the  progress  of  work;  and  it  further  appearing  to  the  commission 
that  the  work  of  changing  said  tracks  by  said  respondent,  the  Suburban 
Railroad  company,  was  prevented  by  action  of  the  village  authorities  of  the 
village  of  Oak  Park,  Cook  county,  Illinois,  and  that  there  is  certain  litigation 
pending  in  the  circuit  court,  Cook  county,  State  of  Illinois,  relating  to  the 
right  of  said  respondent,  the  Suburban  Railroad  company,  to  cross  Oak  Park 
avenue  at  the  point  designated  by  the  previous  order  of  the  commission,  and 
said  petitioner  having  filed  herein  its  petition  asking,  first,  that  the  propor- 
tion which  each  company  should  pay  towards  the  operation  of  the  interlock- 
ing plant  at  crossing  No.  3.  be  fixed  and  determined  by  this  commission  as 
between  the  .Suburban  Railroad  company,  the  Metropolitan  West  Side  Ele- 
vated Railway  company  and  the  petitioner,  the  Aurora,  Elgin  &  Chicago 
Railroad  company:  and  second,  that  this  commission  should  extend  the  time 
within  which  the  petitioner,  the  Aurora,  Elgin  &  Chicago  Railway  company 
should  complete  the  elevation  of  its  tracks  at  crossing  No.  2  in  accordance 
with  the  order  of  this  commission  heretofore  entered; 

Now,  therefore,  it  is  ordered  and  directed,  that  the  Metropolitan  West  Side 
Elevated  Railway  company  pay  23-38ths  of  the  cost  of  the  operation  of  the 


32 

interlocking  plant  at  crossing  No.  3,  heretofore  approved  by  this  commission; 
that  the  respondent,  The  Surburban  Railroad  company  pay  8-38ths  of  the 
cost  of  such  operation  of  said  interlocking  plant,  and  that  the  petitioner,  The 
Aurora,  Elgin  &  Chicago  Railway  company  pay  7-38ths  of  the  cost  of  the 
operation  of  the  said  interlocking  plant. 

It  is  further  ordered,  that  the  time  within  which  the  petitioner,  The 
Aurora,  Elgin  &  Chicago  Railway  company  shall  complete  the  elevation  of 
its  tracks  at  crossing  No.  2,  in  accordance  with  terms  and  conditions  of  the 
order  heretofore  entered  herein  shall  be,  and  it  is  hereby,  extended  for  the 
period  of  sixty  (60)  days  after  the  first  day  of  January,  1903. 

Provided,  however,  That  the  chairman  of  this  commission  may,  on  account 
of  weather  conditions  or  other  causes  rendering  it  impossible  for  said  peti- 
tioner to  complete  said  railway  within  said  time  still  further  extend  the 
time  for  the  completion  of  the  said  work. 

JAMES    S.    NEVILLE,    Chairman. 

A.  L.  FRENCH. 

This  agreement  made  and  entered  into  by  and  between  L.  S.  Owsley,  as 
receiver  for  the  Suburban  Railroad  company,  and  the  Suburban  Railroad 
company,  parties  of  the  first  part,  said  first  parties  being  hereinafter  desig- 
nated as  the  Suburban  company,  and  the  Aurora,  Elgin  &  Chicago  Railway 
company,  party  of  the  second  part,  hereinafter  called  the  Aurora  company, 
witnesseth: 

Whereas,  On  the  21st  day  of  February,  A.  D.,  1902,  the  Railroad  and  Ware- 
house Commission  of  the  State  of  Illinois  entered  an  order  upon  the  petition 
of  the  Aurora  company  in  relation  to  the  three  crossings  of  its  railway  with 
the  lines  of  railway  of  the  said  Suburban  company,'  in  which  crossings  cer- 
tain other  railroads,  viz.,  the  Lake  Street  Elevated  Railroad  company  and  the 
Chicago  Terminal  Transfer  Railroad  company  had  certain  interests,  as  found 
and  referred  to  in  said  order;  said  crossings  being  severally  designated  and 
described  in  said  order  and  in  said  proceedings  before  said  Railroad  and 
Warehouse  Commission  as  crossings  number  1,  2  and  3,  to  which  order  and 
proceedings  reference  is  hereby  made;  and, 

Whereas,  Said  order  of  said  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  provided 
for  a  grade  crossing  at  crossing  No.  1  upon  certain  terms  and  conditions  as 
said  order  specified,  and  provided  for  a  temporary  grade  crossing  at  crossing 
No.  2,  under  certain  terms  and  conditions  in  said  order  specified;  and  at  said 
crossing  No.  2  that  said  Suburban  company  should  make  certain  changes  in 
its  tracks  and  said  Aurora  company  should  erect  an  overhead  crossing  to  be 
completed  by  said  Aurora  company  on  or  before  Jan.  1,  1903,  unless  the 
chairman  of  said  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  should,  for  good 
cause  shown,  extend  the  time  for  the  completion,  or  the  work  should  be  de- 
layed by  strikes,  accidents  or  other  causes  interfering  with  the  progress  of 
the  work;  and 

Whereas,  Said  order  further  provided  with  reference  to  said  crossing  No.  3 
that  the  said  Aurora  company  should  cross  the  railroad  of  said  Suburban 
company  at  grade,  but  should  install  a  one-half  interlocking  device  at  said 
point  of  crossing,  upon  certain  conditions  specifically  set  forth  in  said  order, 
with  the  privilege  of  electing  to  install  a  full  interlocking  device  at  said 
crossing,  such  interlocking  device  to  be  subject  to  the  approval  of  said  Rail- 
road and  Warehouse  Commission;  and, 

Whereas,  On  the  29th  day  of  October,  A.  D.,  1902,  an  order  was  entered  by 
said  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  approving 
a  plan  of  a  full  interlocking  device  at  said  crossing  No.  3;  and,  whereas,  said 
interlocking  plant  has  been  installed  in  accordance  with  said  order  approving 
said  plan  with  the  exception  of  the  derail  provided  for  by  the  said  plan  to  be 
placed  in  the  tracks  of  the  railway  of  the  said  Suburban  company,  and  is 
now  in  operation;  and, 

Whereas,  On  petition  of  the  said  Aurora  company,  an  order  was  entered  by 
said  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  on  the  28th  day  of  November, 
A.  D.,  1902,  in  and  by  which  it  was  provided  that  the  Metropolitan  West  Side 


33 

Elevated  Railway  company  should  pay  23-38ths  of  the  cost  of  the  operation 
of  the  interlocking  plant  at  crossing  No.  3;  that  the  said  Suburban  company 
should  pay  8-38ths,  of  the  cost  of  operation  of  such  interlocking  plant;  and, 
that  the  said  Aurora  company  should  pay  7-38ths  of  the  cost  of  the  operation 
of  said  interlocking  plant;  said  order  further  providing  that  the  time  within 
which  said  overhead  construction  should  be  completed  at  crossing  No.  2 
should  be  extended  for  the  period  of  60  days  from  the  first  day  of  January, 
1903,  provided  that  the  chairman  of  said  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commis- 
sion might  on  account  of  weather  conditions  or  other  causes  rendering  it  im- 
possible for  the  completion  of  said  overhead  construction,  to  further  extend 
the  time  for  the  completion  of  said  work;  and, 

Whereas,  Certain  litigation  is  now  pending  in  the  circuit  court  of  Cook 
county,  State  of  Illinois,  involving  the  right  to  make  the  changes  contem- 
plated in  said  order  of  said  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission,  of  Febru- 
ary 21,  1902,  instituted  by  way  of  intervening  petition  and  cross  bill  of  the 
village  of  Oak  Park,  Cook  county,  Illinois,  filed  in  the  case  of  the  Chicago 
Title  &  Trust  company  vs.  The  Suburban  Railroad  company  and  the  various 
answers  and  cross  petitions  and  other  pleadings  of  the  parties  hereto;  and, 

Whereas,  in  the  said  case  of  The  Chicago  Title  &  Trust  company  vs.  The 
Suburban  Railroad  company,  the  circuit  court  of  Cook  county,  Illinois,  ap- 
pointed one  L.  S.  Owsley,  as  receiver  for  said  Suburban  company; 

Now,  therefore,  in  consideration  of  the  matters  and  things  set  forth'  in  the 
order  of  said  commission  of  February  21,  1902,  and  the  order  of  November 
28,  1902,  and  of  the  matters  and  things  hereinafter  set  forth,  it  is  mutually 
agreed  by  and  between  the  parties  hereto,  as  follows: 

First — That  the  said  Aurora  company  shall  pay  to  the  receiver  of  said 
Suburban  company  the  sum  of  seven- thousand  five  hundred  (7,500)  dollars, 
when  this  contract  shall  have  been  approved  by  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse 
Commission  of  the  State  of  Illinois  and  by  the  village  of  Oak  Park  so  far  as 
said  village  is  required  to  approve  and  of  the  matters  and  things  herein  con- 
tained, but  no  part  of  this  contract  shall  be  considered  as  in  force  until  the 
payment  of  said  sum  of  money. 

Second — 'The  said  Aurora  company  shall  and  it  does  hereby  covenant  and 
agree  to  save  and  keep  harmless  the  said  Suburban  company  from  any  cost 
or  expense  in  relation  to  the  installation,  maintenance  or  operation  of  the  in- 
terlocking device  heretofore  approved  by  the  said  Railroad  and  Warehouse 
Commission  at  crossing  No.  3;  the  intent  and  meaning  of  this  agreement 
being  that  the  said  Aurora  company  shall  relieve  the  said  Suburban  company 
of  the  obligation  imposed  upon  it  by  said  order  of  the  Railroad  and  Ware- 
house Commission  of  the  State  of  Illinois  entered  on  the  28th  day  of  Novem- 
ber, A.  D.  1902,  in,  and  by  which  order  it  was  provided  that  said  Suburban 
company  should  pay  eight  thirtv-eiehths  of  the  cost  of  the  operation  of  the 
said  interlocking  plant,  and  said  Suburban  company  is  by  the  approval  of 
this  contract  bv  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  relieved  and  dis- 
charged from  all  cost  and  expense  of  all  kinds  in  relation  to  said  crossing  No. 
3.  and  interlocker:  Provided,  said  Aurora  company  shall  obtain  from  the 
Metropolitan  West  Side  Elevated  Railway  company  a  release  of  any  c^aim 
against  said  Suburban  company  for  or  on  account  of  any  matter  or  tMng 
connected  either  with  the  installation,  maintenance  or  operation  of  said  in- 
terlocking plant  at  said  crossing  No.  3. 

Third — It  is  further  covenanted  and  agreed  that  the  crossing  of  the  Aurora 
company  over  the  tracks  and  right  of  way  of  the  Suburban  company  at  cross- 
ing No.  2,  shall  be  and  remain  at  grade  at  the  place  of  crossing  east  of  the 
west  line  of  Euclid  avenue  produced  south  where  now  operated  and  used,  un- 
til the  Suburban  company  shall  change  said  crossing  to  a  place  east  of  the 
present  crossing,  which  said  new  crossing  is  shown  upon  the  blue  print  at- 
tached hereto  marked  "Fxhibit  A"  and  made  a  part  hereof  and  identified  by 
the  words  "New  Crossing  No.  2."  Said  new  crossing  No.  2  shall  be  known 
as  and  herein  referred  to  as  crossing  No.  2,  and  as  a  substitute  and  change 
of  location  and  right  of  way  from  that  of  old  crossing  No.  2.  The  said  Au- 
rora company  shall  place  its  track?  in  the  location  and  upon  the  tangent 

-30 


34 

shown  in  said  blue  print  marked  "Exhibit  A,"  on  or  before  May  25,  1903, 
and  shall  install  and  place  in  position  the  frogs,  switches  and  appurtenances, 
and  build  said  crossing  No.  2  for  the  Suburban  company  at  the  said  crossing 
•No.  2  without  expense  or  any  liability  of  the  Suburban  company  for  said 
work.  Said  crossing  to  be  so  constructed  and  in  place  ready  for  the  Subur- 
ban company  to  connect  with  such  special  work  and  crossing  on  or'  before 
May  25,  1903.  The  said  crossing  and  right  of  way  as  indicated  upon  said 
"Exhibit  A"  to  be  and  remain  the  property  of  the  Suburban  company  with 
like  force  and  effect  as  though  said  crossing  had  not  been  placed  at  said  point 
subject  to  the  right  of  the  Aurora  company  to  use  said  crossing  for  operating 
its  road  thereon,  as  herein  provided,  and  as  provided  in  the  order  of  Feb.  21, 

1902,  as  herein  changed  or  modified. 

Fourth — It  is  further  covenanted  and  agreed  that  said  crossing  at  grade, 
at  said  crossing  No.  2,  shall  be  and  is  made  upon  the  further  following  terms 
and  conditions: 

(a)     The  Aurora  company  shall  install  and  operate  on  or  before  June  10, 

1903,  at  its  own  cost  and  expense,  a  hand  derailing  device  at  said  crossing  No. 
2,  which  said  device  shall  be  so  installed  and  operated  as  to  constantly  leave 
the  tracks  of  the  Aurora  company  broken,  excepting  when  said  device  is  used 
to  place  tracks  in  position  for  the  crossing  by  the  cars  of  the  Aurora  com- 
pany over  the  tracks  of  the  Suburban  company;  the  said  device  shall  be  so 
installed  and  operated  that  the  lever  or  controlling  device  of  the  west  bound 
track  or  tracks  of  the  Aurora  company  shall  be  located  west  of  the  tracks  of 
the  Suburban  company  and  the  lever  or  controlling  device  of  the  east  bound 
track  or  tracks  of  the  Aurora  company  shall  be  located  east  of  the  tracks  of 
the  Suburban  company. 

(6)  The  said  Aurora  company  shall  furnish,  install  and  maintain  the 
crossing  at  No.  2,  and  all  crossing  frogs,  switches  and  appurtenances  neces- 
sary to  make  said  crossing  at  grade  at  crossing  No.  2  aforesaid,  and  said 
crossing  to  be  the  standard  double  track  crossing  with  open  throat  for  both 
the  Aurora  company  and  the  Suburban  company,  and  to  be  installed  under 
the  supervision  and  direction  of  the  Suburban  company. 

(c)  Said  Aurora  company  shall  not  place  or  maintain  nor  operate  a  live 
third  rail  for  conducting  electricity  at  the  point  of  crossing  for  a  space  of 
thirty-two  feet,  being  the  sixteen  feet  on  each  side  of  the  center  line  of  the 
tracks  of  the  Suburban  company. 

(d)  The  provisions  of  the  order  of  February  21,  1902,  with  reference  to 
the  operation  of  the  Aurora  company's  road  by  electricity  shall  be  applicable 
to  crossing  No.  2  except  as  herein  otherwise  provided. 

(e)  The  Suburban  company  shall  have  the  right  to  attach  wires  to  the 
poles  of  the  Aurora  company  at  the  point  of  crossing  No.  2,  but  not  in  any 
manner  to  interfere  with  the  operation  of  the  road  of  the  Aurora  company. 

(f)  The  said  Suburban  company  shall  at  all  times  be  given  the  right  of 
way  over  said  crossing  No.  2;   provided,  however,  that  the  said  Suburban 
company  shall  not  stop  its  carg  upon  said  crossing. 

Fifth — The  said  Suburban  company  does  hereby  waive  any  and  all  pro- 
visions for  any  overhead  crossings  at  any  of  the  three  points  of  crossing  pro- 
vided for  in  the  said  order  of  the  said  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission 
of  the  State  of  Illinois,  provided  the  Aurora  company  carries  out  and  fulfills 
this  agreement  and  the  agreement  of  February  21,  1902,  as  contained  in  said 
order  of  said  commission,  except  as  herein  otherwise  provided. 

Sixth — The  said  Suburban  company  hereby  gives  and  grants  to  said  Aurora 
company  and  re-affirms  in  it,  subject  to  the  provisions  of  the  order  of  Febru- 
ary 21,  1902,  as  modified  by  this  agreement,  the  right  to  cross  at  grade  the 
tracks  of  the  said  Suburban  company  with  the  tracks  authorized  by  its  or- 
dinances at  the  crossings  referred  to  in  said  order  of  said  Railroad  and  Ware- 
house Commission;  the  said  crossing  No.  2,  however,  shall  be  made  per- 
manently at  the  new  location  herein  provided,  including  the  right  to  install, 
maintain  and  operate  all  wires  and  electrical  conductors,  both  underneath 
the  tracks  and  right  of  way  of  the  Suburban  company  and  overhead  which 
are  necessary  or  which  may  facilitate  the  operation  of  the  railroad  of  the 


35 

said  Aurora  company,  provided  that  no  such  wires  or  electrical  connections 
shall  .interfere  with  the  operation  of  the  railroad  of  the  said  Suburban  com- 
pany. 

Seventh — This  contract,  with  all  its  terms  and  provisions,  shall  apply  to 
such  additional  tracks  as  either  company  may  hereafter  lay  at  the  points  of 
crossing  aforesaid. 

Eighth — All  terms,  conditions  and  limitations  contained  in  the  orders  of 
the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  of  the  State  of  Illinois  regarding 
said  crossing,  in  relation  to  the  installation,  operation  and  maintenance 
thereof,  shall  remain  in  full  force  and  effect,  except  as  herein  otherwise  pro- 
vided, and  especially  the  provisions  contained  in  said  order  with  reference  to 
the  right  of  the  Suburban  company  to  take  up  and  remove  the  tracks  and 
appurtenances  of  the  Aurora  company  in  case  it  shall  fail  to  comply  with  the 
terms,  provisions,  conditions  and  limitations  contained  in  this  agreement  and 
in  the  order  of  Feb.  21,  1902,  as  herein  modified,  shall  continue  and  remain 
in  force  the  same  as  though  embodied  herein. 

Ninth — This  contract  shall  extend  to  the  successors,  lessees  and  assigns  of 
the  parties  hereto,  and  all  persons  or  corporations  claiming  through  or  under 
them,  or  either  of  them,  and  shall  be. a  contract,  the  provisions  of  which  shall 
extend  to  and  inure  to  the  benefit  of  the  properties  affected  hereby  and  shall 
run  with  such  properties. 

In  witness  whereof,  this  agreement  has  been  executed  on  behalf  of  the 
Suburban  Railroad  company  by  L.  S.  Owsley,  its  receiver,  pursuant  to  order 
and  direction  of  the  circuit  court  of  Cook  county,  Illinois,  and  these  presents 
have  beeen  executed  by  the  Aurora,  Elgin  &  Chicago  Railway  company  by 
L.  J.  Wolf,  its  president,  and  attested  by  Warren  Bicknell,  its  secretary,  this 
24th  day  of  December,  A.  D.  1902. 

L.  S.  OWSLEY. 

As  Receiver  of  the  Suburban  Railroad,  Company. 
THE  SUBURBAN  RAILWAY  Co., 
By  P.  H.  Roeschlaub,  President. 

E.  C.  Veasey,  Secretary. 

THE  AURORA,  ELGIN  AND  CHICAGO  RAILWAY  COMPANY, 
Attest:  By  L.  J.  Wolf. 

Warren  Bicknell,  Secretary. 
Approved : 

THE  CHICAGO'  TERMINAL  TRANSFER  RAILROAD  Co., 
Attest:  By  J.  N.  Paithorn,  President. 

H.  H.  Hall,  Asst.  Secretary. 
O.  K.: 

F.  E.  Paradis. 
O.  K.: 

THE  LAKE  STREET  ELEVATED  R.  R.  Co. 

By  Clarence  A.  Knight,  President. 
Approved: 

RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE 

OF  ILLINOIS.. 
By  James  S.  Neville,  Chairman. 

The  Chicago  Terminal  Transfer  Railroad  company  hereby  approves  the 
foregoing  contract,  so  far  as  the  same  relates  to  the  crossing  with  the  tracks 
of  the  Suburban  company  over  the  tracks  and  right  of  way  of  the  Chicago 
Terminal  Transfer  Railroad  company,  and  consents  that  the  Suburban  com- 
pany shall  have  the  right  of  way  and  crossing  in  lieu  of  and  place  of  the 
former  crossing  of  the  Suburban  company  over  the  tracks  and  right  of  way 
of  the  Terminal  company,  subject  to  the  same  terms  and  covenants. 

CHICAGO  TERMINAL  TRANSFER  RAILROAD  COMPANY, 
Attest:  By  J.  N.  Paithorn,  President, 

H.  H.  Hall,  Asst.  Secretary. 


36 

BEFORE  THE  HONORABLE,   THE  BOARD  OF  RAILROAD   AND   WAREHOUSE   COMMIS- 
SIONERS OF  THE  STATE  or  ILLINOIS. 


In  the  matter  of  the  objections  of  the  St.  Louis  Traffic  Bureau  and  other 
shippers  doing  business  in  East  St.  Louis,  to  the  enforcement  of  the  so-called 
reconsignment  order  put  in  force  Nov.  1,  1902,  by  the  Local  Freight  Agents 
Association  (composed  of  agents  of  the  several  railroads  running  into  East 
St.  Louis)  which  abrogates  rules  in  force  by  consent  of  all  parties  interested 
for  more  than  seven  years. 

OPINION   BY   NEVILLE,   CHAIRMAN. 

For  seven  years  prior  to  the  first  of  November,  1902,  the  railroad  com- 
panies doing  business  in  East  St.  Louis  and  within  the  switching  limits 
thereof,  had  the  following  rules: 

"1.  All  cars  of  oats,  corn,  wheat  and  rye  received,  not  consigned  to  ele- 
vators or  specific  track  delivery,  or  so  ordered  before  arrival,  will  be  held  on 
tracks  for  inspection  and  sale,  until  5:00  p.  m.  of  the  day  following  delivery  of 
notice  of  arrival.  If  by  that  time,  cars  are  ordered  to  some  destination 
within  the  yard  limits  of  the  company  they  will  be  sent  to  such  point  with- 
out extra  charge.  If  ordered  after  5:00  p.  m.  of  the  day  following  notice  of 
arrival,  usual  switching  charges  will  be  collected. 

"2.  If  disposition  is  not  furnished  for  cars  by  5:00  p.  m.  of  the  day  after 
delivery  of  notice  of  arrival,  grain  will  be  stored  in  public  elevator,  the  usual 
switching  charge  being  made  for  handling  to  elevators. 

"3.  All  cars  arriving  consigned  to  some  specific  point  of  delivery,  or 
ordered  before  arrival,  will  be  delivered  at  point  designated  on  arrival.  If 
ordred  from  said  point  after  being  properly  placed,  usual  switching  charges 
will  be  made. 

"4.  Sundays  and  legal  holidays  are  not  to  be  counted  in  allowances  of 
free  time  for  reconsignment." 

Shortly  before  November  1,  1902,  the  several  railroad  companies  gave 
notice  to  the  shippers  and  receivers  of  grain  within  the  switching  limits  of 
East  St.  Louis,  that  on  and  after  November  1,  the  following  order  or  rule 
would  be  in  force: 

"Effective  November  1,  1902,  a  regular  switching  and  reconsignment 
charge,  minimum  $2  per  car,  will  be  made  on  all  commodities  reconsigned 
within  the  switching  limits  of  St.  Louis  and  East  St.  Louis." 

About  that  time  the  shippers  and  receivers  of  grain,  of  East  St.  Louis, 
filed  with  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission'  a  petition  protesting 
against  the  change  in  rules,  and  the  adoption  of  the  rule  making  a  charge  of 
$2  on  all  cars  of  grain  reconsigned  within  the  switching  limits  of  East  St. 
Louis.  The  case  was  set  for  hearing  before  this  board  and  on  the  19th  <lav 
of  November,  1902,  the  general  managers  of  the  several  railroads  had  a 
meeting  at  which  they  passed  the  following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  the  reconsignment  charge  be  assessed  on  all  commodities 
reconsigned  within  the  switching  limits  of  East  St.  Louis  and  St.  Louis, 
when  designated  to  points  within  such  limits  only." 

Notice  of  which  was  never  given  to  the  petitioners  until  the  day  of  trial  of 
this  case  in  St.  Louis,  about  the  25th  day  of  November,  and  up  to  that  time 
the  evidence  shows  that  the  several  railroad  companies  had  been  charging 
the  $2  reconsignment  charge  on  cars  that  were  reconsigned  outside  of  the 
switching  limits  of  the  city  of  East  St.  Louis  as  well  as  those  within  the 
switching  limits. 

It  is  contended  by  the  petitioners,  that  the  charge  of  $2  for  reconsigning 
grain  after  it  has  been  delivered  to  their  tracks  called  "the  hold  tracks,"  as 
provided  by  their  last  rule,  is  an  unjust  charge  and  that  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  it  is  only  charged  when  reconsignments  are  made  to  interchange  tracks 
with  other  roads,  or  to  elevators  or  warehouses  on  their  own  road,  when  the 
said  grains  are  to  be  unloaded  within  the  switching  limits  of  East  St.  Louis 
and  are  not  made  when  cars  are  delivered  to  such  interchange  tracks  for  the 


37 

purpose  of  being  shipped  beyond  the  switching  limits  of  East  St.  Louis,  is  an. 
unjust  discrimination.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  contended  by  the  respondents 
that  it  is  not  an  unjust  discrimination  and  is  within  the  law  laid  down  by  the 
Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  the  C.  &  N.-W.  R.  R.  Co.  against  Stanbor,  87th 
111.,  195,  and  that  the  same  rule  has  been  adhered  to  in  the  case  of  C.  M.  &. 
N.  R.  R.  Co.  against  the  National  Elevator  Co.,  153d  111.,  p.  70.  We  have  ex- 
amined both  cases  very  carefully  and  from  such  examinations  are  led  to 
believe  that  the  two  cases  differ  on  the  question  of  the  meaning  of  the  term 
"reconsignment."  The  first  was  a  case  under  penal  statute,  which  is  section 
3,  and  is  as  follows: 

"Every  railroad  corporation  which  shall  receive  any  grain  in  bulk  for 
transportation  to  any  place  within  this  State,  shall  transport  and  deliver 
the  same  to  any  consignee,  elevator,  warehouse,  or  place  to  whom  or  to 
which  it  may  be  consigned  or  directed;  provided,  such  person,  warehouse  or 
place  can  be  reached  by  any  track  owned,  leased  or  used,  or  which  can  be 
used  by  such  corporation;  and  every  such  corporation  shall  permit  connec- 
tions to  be  made  and  maintained  with  its  track  to  and  from  any  and  all  pubMc 
warehouses  where  grain  is  or  may  be  stored.  Any  such  corporation  neglect- 
ing or  refusing  to  comply  with  the  requirements  of  this  section,  shall  be 
liable  to  all  persons  injured  thereby  for  all  damages  which  they  may  sustain 
on  that  account,  whether  such  damages  result  from  any  depreciation  in  the 
value  of  such  property  by  such  neglect  or  refusal  to  deliver  such  grain  as 
directed,  or  in  loss  to  the  proprietor  or  manager  of  any  public  warehouse  to 
which  it  is  directed  to  be  delivered  and  cost  of  suit,  including  such  reason- 
able attorney's  fees  as  shall  be  taxed  by  the  court.  And  in  case  of  any 
second  or  later  refusal  of  such  railroad  corporation  to  comply  with  the 
requirements  of  this  section,  such  corporation  shall  be  by  the  court,  in  the 
action  on  which  such  failure  or  refusal  shall  be  found,  adjudged  to  pay  for 
the  use  of  the  people  of  this  State  a  sum  of  not  less  than  one  thousand  dol- 
lars nor  more  than  five  thousand  dollars  for  each  and  every  such  failure  or 
refusal,  and  this  may  be  a  part  of  the  judgment  of  the  court  in  any  second  or 
later  proceeding  against  such  corporation.  In  case  any  railroad  corporation 
shall  be  found  guilty  of  having  violated,  failed  or  omitted  to  observe  and  oom- 
ply  with  the  requirements  of  this  section,  or  any  part  thereof,  three  or  more 
times  it  shall  be  lawful  for  any  person  interested  to  apply  to  a  court  of 
chancery  and  obtain  the  appointment  of  a  receiver  to  take  charge  of  and 
manage  such  railroad  corporation  until  all  damages,  penalties,  costs  and 
expenses  adjudged  against  such  corporation  for  any  and  every  violation  shall, 
together  with  the  interest,  be  fully  satisfied." 

The  second  case  is  under  section  4,  which  is  as  follows: 

"All  consignments  of  grain  to  any  elevator  or  public  warehouse  shall  be 
held  to  be  temporary,  and  subject  to  change  by  the  consignee  or  consignor 
at  any  time  previous  to  the  actual  unloading  of  such  property  from  the  car  in 
which  it  is  transported.  Notice  of  any  change  in  consignment  may  be  served 
by  the  consignee  on  any  agent  of  the  railroad  corporation  having  the 
property  in  possession  who  may  be  in  charge  of  the  business  of  such  corpor- 
ation at  the  point  where  such  property  is  to  be  delivered;  and  if,  after  such 
notice,  and  while  the  same  remains  uncancelled,  such  property  is  delivered 
ir  any  way  different  from  such  altered  or  changed  consignment,  such  rail- 
road corporation  shall,  at  the  election  of  the  consignee  or  person  entitled  to 
control  such  property,  be  deemed  to  have  illegally  appropriated  such  property 
to  its  own  use,  and  shall  be  liable  to  pay  the  owner  or  consignee  of  such 
property  double  the  value  of  the  property  so  appropriated;  and  no  extra 
charge  shall  be  permitted  by  the  corporation  having  the  custody  of  such 
property,  in  consequence  of  such  change  of  consignment." 

This  is  on  a  different  subject,  that  is,  the  question  of  reconsignment  of 
grain  before  delivery  without  extra  charge  or  compensation.  In  the  C.  M.  & 
N.  case,  153  111.,  84,  the  courts  say: 

"And  so  if  in  section  3  of  the  act  the  word  'consignment'  is  used  in  the 
sense  of  indicating  a  consignment  made  at  the  time  and  point  of  shipment 
and  such  consignment  only,  yet,  in  section  4  the  word  'consignment'  seems 
to  have  an  enlarged  sense  attached  to  it,  that  of  denoting  a  direction  or  con- 


38 

signment  to  a  particular  elevator  or  warehouse  at  any  time  prior  to  the 
actual  unloading  of  the  grain  from  the  cars  in  which  it  was  transported." 

"If  that  is  true,  then  there  is  no  right  in  the  railroad  companies  to  charge 
an  extra  charge  in  consequence  of  such  reconsignment  in  addition  to  the 
regular  freight  on  said  grain.  We  can  see  that  the  receiver  of  grain  might, 
in  the  ordinary  management  of  his  business  not  know  where  he  would  want 
his  cars  of  grain  delivered  until  after  they  were  inspected.  He  might  want  a 
car  of  grain  that  would  inspect  one  grade  at  one  place,  and  another  grade  at 
another  place,  where,  under  the  law  he  has  a  reasonable  time  after  the  grain 
has  been  delivered  to  the  place  of  inspection,  and  after  notice  of  such  de- 
livery to  inspect  or  have  the  grain  inspected,  and  then  direct  where  it  should 
be  delivered,  without  any  additional  charge  over  and  above  the  regular 
freight  on  such  grain  from  the  point  of  shipment  to  the  point  of  delivery,  as 
directed  after  such  inspection.  The  question  then  remains  as  to  what  is  a 
reasonable  time.  As  will  be  seen  by  the  old  rules  above  set  forth,  the  re- 
spondents themselves  prior  to  Nov.  1st,  allowed  until  5:00  o'clock  p.  m.  of 
the  day  following  the  delivery  of  notice  of  the  arrival  of  the  grain,  and  if  by 
that  time  cars  were  ordered  to  some  destination  within  the  yard  limits  of  the 
city,  they  were  sent  there  without  extra  charge;  if  ordered  after  5:00  o'clock 
p.  m.  of  the  day  after  delivery  of  notice  of  arrival,  the  usual  charge  was 
made.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  under  the  old  rules  the  respondents  con- 
sidered that  a  reasonable  time,  we  hold  in  this  case  that  is  a  reasonable  time, 
and  the  order  will  be  as  follows." 

It  is  therefore  ordered  by  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  of  the 
State  of  Illinois,  that  all  railroads  running  into  and  doing  business  within 
the  city  of  or  switching  limits  of  East  ,St.  Louis,  shall  hereafter  allow  all 
shippers  or  receivers  of  grain  within  said  district,  a  reasonable  time  to  direct 
said  railroad  companies  where  to  deliver  said  grain  after  they  have  had  no- 
tice of  its  arrival  within  the  switching  limits  of  Bast  St.  Louis,  when  said 
grain  is  shipped  from  a  point  within  the  State  of  Illinois  to  East  St.  Louis, 
and  that  such  reasonable  time  shall  be  until  5:00  o'clock  p.  m.  the  day  fol- 
lowing delivery  of  notice  of  arrival  thereof,  and  that  no  extra  charge  shall  be 
made  for  delivering  said  grain  to  any  warehouse,  elevator  or  interchange 
track  where  said  grain  is  to  be  delivered  within  the  switching  limits  of  East 
St.  Louis,  until  after  5:00  o'clock  p.  m.  of  the  day  following  the  delivery  of 
notice  of  such  arrival  to  the  consignee,  receiver,  or  person  entitled  to  receive 
said  grain. 

JAMES  S.  NEVILLE, 

Chairman. 
ABTHUR  L.  FRENCH, 

Commissioner. 

Springfield,  111.,  Jan.  13,  1903. 


BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 

D.  H.  Curry  &  Co. 

vs. 
The  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Co 

Complaint  of  Discrimination,  Jan.  29,  190-3. 


On  Dec.  29,  1902,  D.  H.  Curry  &  Co.  filed  in  the  office  of  the  Railroad  and 
Warehouse  Commission,  complaint  against  the  Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co.,  for 
an  unjust  discrimination  against  the  said  D.  H.  Curry,  or  the  firm  of  D.  H. 
Curry  &  Co.,  in  the  distribution  of  grain  cars  at  the  town  of  Mason  City, 


39 

Mason  county,  111.,  alleging  that  they  were  an  elevator  company,  buying  and 
shipping  grain  from  Mason  City,  and  that  there  was  a  company  called  the 
Farmers'  Grain  &  Coal  Co.  of  Mason  City,  who  were  also  engaged  in  the 
same  line  of  business,  at  the  same  place  and  that  the  Illinois  Central  R.  R. 
Co.  furnished  a  large  number  of  cars  to  the  Farmers'  Grain  &  Coal  Co.  to 
ship  grain  in  from  Mason  City  and  neglected  and  refused  to  furnish  cars  to 
the  said  D.  H.  Curry  &  Co.  to  be  used  for  the  same  purpose. 

The  defendant,  the  Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co.  filed  its  answer  Jan.  15,  1903, 
denying  that  they  unlawfully  discriminated  against  petitioners,  D.  H.  Curry 
&  Co.,  in  the  distribution  of  cars.  Said  railroad  company  admitted  that 
they  had  furnished  a  large  number  of  cars  to  the  Farmers'  Grain  &  Coal  Co. 
and  had  furnished  very  few  cars  to  D.  H.  Curry  &  Co.,  but  they  defended 
their  action  in  so  doing  by  alleging  that  the  Farmers'  Grain  &  Coal  Co.'s 
elevator  was  located  on  the  ground  of  the  Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co.,  adjacent 
to  the  side  track  of  the  said  railroad  company  and  that  the  elevators  of  D.  H. 
Curry  &  Co.  were  located  on  the  right  of  way  and  adjacent  to  the  side  tracks 
of  the  Chicago  &  Alton  Ry.  Co.  and  on  the  further  ground  that  D.  H.  Curry 
&  Co.  had  gone  into  a  conspiracy  with  a  number  of  other  grain  men  or  grain 
companies  to  prevent  the  said  Farmers'  Grain  &  Coal  Co.  from  getting  cars 
to  ship  their  grain  and  to  prevent  commission  men  and  buyers  at  other  mar- 
kets from  buying  or  handling  grain  of  the  Farmer's  Elevator's  companies 
and  for  that  reason,  the  fact  that  they  furnished  a  great  number  of  cars  to 
the  Farmers'  Grain  &  Coal  Co.  and  refused  or  neglected  to  furnish  cars  to  D. 
H.  Curry  &  Co.  was  not  an  unlawful  discrimination. 

The  case  was  set  for  hearing  on  Jan.  29,  1903,  at  the  office  of  the  Railroad 
and  Warehouse  Commission,  in  Springfield,  111.,  and  the  parties  appeared 
with  a  large  number  of  witnesses  on  each  side.  The  proof  shows  that  for  a 
good  many  years  past  D.  H.  Curry  &  Co.  had  been  engaged  in  the  elevator 
business  at  Mason  City;  that  Mason  City  is  a  junction  of  the  Illinois  Central 
R.  R.  and  the  Chicago  &  Alton  Ry.;  that  the  elevators  of  D.  H.  Curry  &  Co. 
were  located  along  the  line  of  the  Chicago  &  Alton  Ry.  and  that  the  Farmers' 
Grain  &  Coal  Co.  is  located  on  the  line  of  the  Illinois  Central  R.  R.;  that  at 
certain  times  in  the  year  it  was  a  great  advantage  to  a  shipper  to  be  able  to 
ship  their  grain  over  the  Illinois  Central  R.  R.  and  for  that  reason  D.  H. 
Curry  &  Co.  applied  for  cars  and  were  willing,  if  cars  were  furnished  them, 
to  haul  their  grain  by  teams  from  their  elevators  to  the  Illinois  Central  side 
tracks  and  load  it  into  the  cars  from  wagons  and  that  they  had  on  very  many 
different  times  done  that,  but  that  since  November,  1902,  they  had  been  un- 
able to  secure  any  cars  and  although  the  market  for  their  grain  at  places  where 
they  could  ship  over  the  Illinois  Central  R.  R.  was  from.  1  to  3  cents  a 
bushel  higher  than  at  markets  where  they  could  ship  over  the  Chicago  &' 
Alton  Ry.,  they  were  unable  to  get  cars  to  ship  over  the  Illinois  Central  R.  R. 

The  evidence  also  shows  that  for  many  years  prior  to  December,  1900,  at 
the  time  the  Farmers'  Grain  &  Coal  Co.  began  business  at  Mason  City,  D.  H. 
Curry  &  Co.  had  been  in  business  at  Mason  City,  and  that  before  that  time 
grain  sold  for  from  2  to  3  cents  a  bushel  less  at  Mason  City  than  at  other 
markets  in  that  vicinity,  but  that  after  the  Farmers'  Grain  &  Coal  Co.,  began 
business  there  grain  brought  from  %  to  2  cents  a  bushel  more  at  Mason  City 
than  it  did  at  other  markets  in  that  vicinity. 

The  evidence  also  shows  that  after  the  controversy  came  up  about  the  dis- 
tribution of  cars,  that  a  number  of  commission  companies  in  the  city  of  Chi- 
cago, where  the  Farmers'  Grain  &  Coal  Co.  were  in  the  habit  of  shipping  a 
large  amount  of  grain,  and  .grain  buyers  at  Decatur  and  other  places,  where 
they  had  shipped  some  grain,  after  doing  business  a  short  time  with  the 
Farmers'  Grain  &  Coal  Co.,  would  notify  them,  the  Farmers'  Grain  &  Coal 
Co.,  that  they  were  unable  to  continue  to  handle  their  grain,  and  asked  them 
to  ship  to  some  other  person  or  company.  This  is  true  in  a  number  of  in- 
stances. The  writers  of  such  letters  were  witnesses  in  this  hearing,  and  their 
excuse  for  writing  such  letters  and  ceasing  to  do  business  with  the  Farmers' 
Grain  &  Coal  Co.,  at  Mason  City  was  that  the  Illinois  Grain  Dealers'  Associa- 
tion, an  association  of  which  they  were  members,  had,  through  its  special 


40 

ageni,  one  A.  W.  Lloyd,  advised  them  not  to  handle  the  grain  of  the  farm- 
ers' elevators,  and  that  he  had  led  them  to  believe  that  anyone  who  handled 
the  grain  of  farmers'  elevators  would  not  get  to  handle  the  grain  of  any  of 
the  members  of  the  Grain  Dealers'  Association,  and  in  almost  every  instance, 
as  will  be  seen  by  copies  of  letters  which  are  made  a  part  of  this  opinion, 
they  refused  to  do  business  with  the  farmers'  elevator  companies  for  the 
reason  that  they  thought  it  would  be  more  advantageous  to  them  to  handle 
the  business  of  the  members  of  the  Illinois  Grain  Dealers'  Association  than 
it  would  to  handle  the  business  of  the  farmers'  elevators,  and  that  they 
could  not  do  both. 

The  following  are  copies  of  letters,  which  are  made  a  part  of  this  opinion: 

CHICAGO,  ILL.,  Nov.  22,  1902. 
Farmers'  Grain  and  Coal  Co.,  Mason  City,  III: 

DEAR  SIRS — For  some  time  past  we  have  been  considering  the  advisability 
of  asking  you  to  change  your  account  to  some  other  house.  As  you  know 
we  are  dependent  upon  the  country  grain  shippers  for  a  living,  and  in 
times  past  have  operated  country  elevators  ourselves.  We  have,  therefore, 
decided  not  to  solicit  or  handle  any  grain  except  from  the  regular  country 
grain  shippers.  Hence,  we  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that,  although 
our  past  business  has  been  satisfactory,  it  is  to  our  financial  advantage  to 
have  you  transfer  your  account  to  some  other  house.  We  will,  therefore, 
collect  for  all  the  grain  we  have  sold  for  you  and  get  account  sales  to 
you  just  as  soon  as  possible.  Yours  very  truly, 

NASH.  W.  &  Co., 
(Baker.) 

CHICAGO,  ILL.,  Dec.  1,  1902. 
Farmers'  Grain  and  Elevator  Co.,  Mason  City,  III: 

GENTLEMEN — Our  representative,  Mr.  White,  has  reported  having  had  a 
very  pleasant  visit  with  you.  In  reply  to  your  inquiry  whether  we  would 
take  your  account,  will  say  that  after  considering  the  matter  very  care- 
fully we  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  if  you  will  join  the  Illinois  Grain 
Dealers'  Association  (which  we  are  satisfied  will  be  to  your  interest  as  well 
as  ours)  we  will  be  pleased  to  take  your  account  and  handle  your  shipments 
to  your  best  possible  advantage.  Are  confident  that  if  you  join  the  associa- 
tion, and  work  in  harmony  with  your  competitors  the  ill  feeling  now  existing 
will  not  be  so  bitter.  Have  written  Mr.  Mowry,  secretary  of  the  association, 
the  stand  we  have  taken  and  believe  the  sooner  you  send  him  your  applica- 
tion the  better  it  will  be  for  all  concerned. 

As  to  the  action  of  today's  markets,  we  will  refer  you  to  enclosed  market 
letter  and  price  current.  Hoping  to  hear  in  the  near  future  that  you  have 
joined  our  ranks,  we  remain  Yours  truly, 

H.  HEMMELGARN  &  Co. 

CHICAGO.  ILL..  Dec.  15,  1902. 
Farmers'  Grain  d-  Coal  Co.,  Mason  City,  III: 

DEAR  SIRS — In  talking  with  my  partners  since  seeing  you  yesterday  we 
have  decided  that  inasmuch  as  we  are  members  of  the  Grain  Dealers'  Asso- 
ciation, and  have  subscribed  to  the  rules,  we  do  not  feel  that  it  would  be 
honorable  to  solicit  your  business  and  regret  very  much  to  have  to  inform 
you  that  we  cannot  do  so. 

Very  truly  yours, 

WAKNKR  &  Wn.m  K. 

Per  J.  H.  Warner. 


41 

CHICAGO,  ILL.,  Dec.  20,  1902. 
Farmers'  Grain  d  Coal  Co.,  Mason  City,  III.: 

GENTLEMEN — We  are  very  much  pleased  to  receive  your  favor  of  yesterday 
advising  shipment  of  two  cars  of  corn,  which  will  have  our  best  attention  on 
arrival.  We  are  pleased  to  get  this  start  with  you  and  we  hope  our  sales  and 
manner  of  handling  this  consignment  will  induce  a  long  and  pleasant  busi- 
ness between  us.  Our  cash  corn  market  was  stronger  and  prices  were 
slightly  higher  than  yesterday.  Some  report  the  market  as  slightly  lower 
but  our  sales  are  certainly  better  than  those  made  for  the  same  quality  of 
corn  yesterday.  Our  cash  oat  market  was  also  strong  and  about  a  quarter 
cent  higher.  Samples  were  in  brisk  demand.  We  are  firm  believers  in 
higher  prices  for  both  cash  oats  and  May  future.  Thanking  you  for  this  first 
shipment,  we  remain, 

Sincerely  yours, 

Die.  E.  W.  B.  L.  H.  MANSON  &  Co. 

CHICAGO.  ILL.,  Jan.  6,  1903. 
Farmers'  Grain  d  Coal  Co.,  Mason  City.  III.: 

GENTLEMEN — For  financial  reasons  we  have  decided  that  we  cannot  accept 
any  more  of  your  business  and  therefore  write  you  accordingly. 

Yours  very  truly. 

FYFE,  MANSON  &  Co. 

MASON  CITY,  ILL.,  Jan.  7,  1903. 
Fyfe,  Manson  d  Co.,  Chicago,  III.: 

GENTLEMEN — Yours  of  the  6th  received.  Please  advise  what  you  mean  by 
refusing  our  business  for  financial  reasons.  Is  our  account  with  you  not 
satisfactory,  or  do  you  think  we  are  not  a  safe  house  to  do  business  with, 
when  we  are  backed  by  a  million  or  more  money.  Would  thank  you  very 
much  for  an  explanation  at  once. 

Respectfully, 

FARMERS'  GRAIN  &  COAL  Co.. 

Per  J.  A.  McCreary. 

CHICAGO,  ILL.,  Jan.  9,  1903. 
Farmers'  Grain  d  Coal  Co.,  Mouon  City,  III.: 

GENTLEMEN — We  have  your  favor  of  the  7th  inst,  and  in  reply  to  same  will 
state  that  we  have  no  doubt  whatever  but  what  your  firm  is  perfectly  respon- 
sible and  good  financially  for  anything  that  you  would  do  but  we  have  other 
interests  that  conflict  doing  business  with  you.  Enclosed  find  account  sales 
for  the  car  corn  No.  22,660,  showing  net  proceeds  of  $536.11.  This  car  closes 
up  all  the  business  we  have  had  from  you  and  we  herewith  enclose  check  for 
$160.30  to  balance  account.  Thanking  you  for  past  favors  and  hoping  you 
will  call  and  see  us  when  in  the  city,  we  are 

Sincerely  yours, 

Die.  L.  H.  M.  FYFE,  MANSON  &  Co. 

DECATUR,  ILL.,  Jan.  9,  1903. 
Mason  City  Farmers'  Grain  d  Coal  Co..  Mason  City.  III.: 

GENTLEMEN — Referring  to  our  conversation  by  'phone  today,  there  will  be 
a  meeting  at  Decatur  next  week  for  the  purpose  of  talking  over  some  matters 
of  interest  and  we  think  it  would  be  a  good  plan  for  you  to  confer  with  the 
managers  of  the  New  Holland  and  Easton  Farmers'  Companies  and  have 
your  three  managers  present  here  and  with  full  power  to  act  for  your  com- 
panies. If  you  come,  without  power  to  act  it  will  be  a  waste  of  time  and 
expense.  The  purpose  is  to  adjust  all  differences  between  you  and  the 
regular  shippers  in  your  territory.  It  is  not  the  purpose  of  arranging  mat- 
ters so  that  the  farmers  will  be  treated  unfairly  but  in  such  a  way  that  there 
will  be  no  injustice  to  the  farmer  nor  to  the  regular  dealer  who  has  his 
money  invested  in  the  grain  business.  Some  plan  must  be  adopted  that  will 
provide  for  each  shipper  so  that  he  will  be  given  his  share  of  the  business  at 
a  reasonable  margin  of  profit.  If  you  can  arrange  to  be  present  with  the 
authority  suggested,  we  will  notify  you  of  the  time  of  the  meeting. 

Yours  truly, 

N.  HUNT  &  Co. 


42 

HAVANA,  ILL.,  Jan.  14,  1903. 
If  ess.  Suffern,  Hunt  &  Co.,  Decatur,  III.: 

DEAR  SIRS — We  will  say  that  a  number  of  the  dealers  flatly  refuse  to  make 
any  terms  with  the  Farmers'  Elevator  combines  at  Easton,  Mason  City  and 
New  Holland  which  you  have  suggested.  We  thank  you  for  your  efforts  in 
our  behalf  and  can  have  no  objections  to  you  seeking  to  establish  your  pre- 
vious business  relations  with  the  parties  at  the  above  named  stations. 

Respectfully, 

MCFADDEN  &  CO. 

DECATUR,  ILL.,  Jan.  15,  1903. 
Mason  City  Farmers'  Grain  Co.,  Mason  City,  III.: 

GENTLEMEN — We  have  been  unable  to  get  your  opposers  to  agree  to  give 
you  a  hearing,  so  we  hand  you  bid  herewith.  We  will  meet  a  committee 
here  tomorrow  and  will  insist  upon  fair  treatment. 

Yours  truly, 

SUFFERN,  HUNT  &  Co. 

From  the  evidence  shown,  we  are  led  to  believe  that  there  was  some  kind 
of  an  understanding  between  the  complainant,  D.  H.  Curry  &  Co.,  and  mem- 
bers of  the  Illinois  Grain  Dealers'  Association;  that  the  members  of  that  as- 
sociation, or  parties  handling  the  grain  of  the  members  of  that  association, 
were  not  to  handle  any  of  the  grain  of  the  Farmers'  elevators.  The  evidence 
of  Wm.  H.  Suffern,  of  Decatur,  who  was  a  witness  for  the  defense  shows 
that  there  was  an  objection  by  members  of  the  Illinois  Grain  Dealers  Asso- 
ciation to  his  firm,  Suffern,  Hunt  &  Co.,  of  Decatur,  sending  bids  or  buying 
grain  from  the  Farmers'  Elevator  and  that  he,  Mr.  Suffern,  of  his  own 
motion,  undertook  to  settle  that  difference  and  after  so  doing  wrote  several 
letters  back  and  forth  between  his  firm,  the  Farmers'  Grain  &  Coal  Co.  at 
Mason  City  and  McFadden  &  Co.,  a  firm,  of  grain  dealers  at  Havana,  111., 
near  Mason  City,  and  it  is  admitted  by  Mr.  Curry  that  within  a  very  few 
minutes  after  Mr.  McFadden  received  the  letter  from  Mr.  Suffern,  asking 
that  some  adjustment  be  made  by  which  their  firm  could  send  bids  to  the 
Farmers'  Grain  &  Coal  Co.,  at  Mason  City,  and  just  prior  to  tne  letter  written 
by  Suffern,  Hunt  &  Co.,  to  the  Farmers'  Grain  &  Coal  Co.  stating  that  it 
would  be  of  no  use  for  them  to  some  to  Decatur  to  try  and  adjust  their  dif- 
'ferences,  that  McFadden  had  telephoned  Mr.  Curry  all  about  the  correspon- 
dence with  Suffern,  Hunt  &  Co. 

While  this  is  not  the  strongest  evidence  that  Mr.  Curry  was  a  party  to  the 
attempt  to  prevent  members  of  the  Illinois  Grain  Dealers'  Association  and 
commission  men  handling  their  business  from  doing  business  with  the  Farm- 
ers' Grain  &  Coal  Co.,  it  is  sufficient  to  show  that  Mr.  Curry  knew  what  was 
going  on  and  while  it  may  not  be  a  legal  defense  to  the  Illinois  Central  Rail- 
road Co.  in  not  delivering  cars  to  D.  H.  Curry  &  Co.,  it  shows  very  conclu- 
sively that  Mr.  Curry  was  willing  that  anything  should  be  done  to  prevent 
the  Farmers'  Grain  and  Coal  Co.  from  having  a  market  for  its  grain  and  he 
himself  refusing  to  agree  to  a  conference  between  the  interested  parties  by 
which  a  settlement  could  be  made  that  would  allow  the  firm  of  Suffern,  Hunt 
&  Co.  to  send  bids  to  and  buy  grain  from  the  Farmers'  Grain  &  Coal  Co. 

The  law  governing  the  transportation  of  grain  is  as  follows:  "That  every 
railroad  corporation,  chartered  by  or  organized  under  the  laws  of  this  State, 
or  doing  business  within  the  limits  of  the  same,  when  desired  by  any  person 
wishing  to  ship  any  grain  over  its  road,  shall  receive  and  transport  such 
grain  in  bulk,  within  a  reasonable  time,  and  load  the  same  either  upon  its 
track  at  its  depot  or  in  any  warehouse  adjoining  its  track  or  side  track, 
without  distinction,  discrimination  or  favor  between  one  shipper  and  another, 
and  without  distinction  or  discrimination  as  to  the  manner  in  which  such 
grain  is  offered  to  it  for  transportation  or  as  to  the  person,  warehouse  or 
place  to  whom  or  to  which  it  may  be  consigned." 

From  this  it  will  be  seen  that  where  persons  apply  for  cars  to  ship  grain 
that  it  makes  no  difference  whether  he  is  a  buyer  or  a  farmer  desiring  to 


43 

ship  his  own  grain;  that  he  is  entitled  to  the  same  rights  with  reference  to 
the  receipt  of  cars  in  shipment  of  grain,  but  we  think  the  rule  should  be  that 
where  elevators  are  located  along  different  lines  of  roads  at  junction  points, 
that  in  the  distribution  of  cars,  each  railroad  should  take  into  consideration 
the  number  of  cars  furnished  to  the  elevator  on  the  other  line  of  road  by  the 
railroad  on  whose  line  such  elevator  is  situated  as  well  as  the  number  of  cars 
furnished  to  such  elevators  by  their  road,  and  should  distribute  the  cars 
equitably  according  to  the  whole  number  of  cars  received  by  all  roads  at 
such  point,  in  accordance  with  the  amount  of  grain  to  be  shipped  by  the  dif- 
ferent shippers  or  persons  desiring  to  ship.  That  seems  to  be  the  custom  at 
many  junction  points  within  the  State,  and  in  our  opinion  is  the  proper  rule. 

It  is  therefore  ordered  by  the  commission  that  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad 
Company  hereafter  distribute  cars  to  D.  H.  Curry  &  Co.,  the  Farmers'  Grain 
&  Coal  Co.  and  to  the  F.  M.  Hubbard  Elevator  Co.,  in  accordance  with  the 
foregoing  rule,  and  that  other  persons  who  desire  to  ship  be  treated  in  the 
same  way. 

JAMES  S.  NEVILLE,  Chairman. 
ARTHUR  L.  FRENCH,  Commissioner. 

Springfield,  111.,  April  8,  1903. 


ORDER  OF  THE  BOARD  OF  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE   COMMISSIONERS   IN  THE 
MATTER  OF  BLOCKING  SWITCHES,  ETC. 

SPRINGFIELD,  ILL.,  April  8,  1903. 

At  the  regular  monthly  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Railroad  and  Warehouse 
Commissioners  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  held  at  their  office  in  Springfield,  111., 
this  8th  day  of  April,  1903,  the  matter  of  the  proper  protection  of  all  frogs, 
guard  rails  and  the  heels  of  all  switch  points  by  foot  guards  or  blocking,  as 
set  forth  in  their  circular  letter  of  Feb.  10,  1903,  and  the  hearing  of  the  case 
before  the  board  of  Feb.  24,  1903,  was  taken  up  for  final  decision. 

From  the  files  of  the  board,  as  to  reports  of  personal  injuries,  and  from  the 
statements  of  the  construction  and  operating  departments  of  a  large  percent- 
age of  the  railroads  of  our  State,  as  developed  at  the  hearing,  that  it  is  nec- 
essary as  a  measure  of  protection  to  the  lives  or  serious  injury  of  persons, 
more  especially  of  employe's  in  the  operating  departments  of  our  railroads, 
that  all  frogs,  guard  rails  and  the  heels  of  all  switch  points  in  all  switches  in 
this  State  be  protected  by  foot  guards  or  blocking. 

It  is  therefore  ordered,  by  said  Board  of  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commis- 
sioners, that  under  the  provisions  of  "An  Act  to  establish  a  Board  of  Rail- 
road and  Warehouse  Commissioners,  and  prescribe  their  powers  and  duties, 
approved  April  13,  1871,  in  force  July  1,  1871,  section  11%,"  and  after  full 
compliance  with  all  of  its  requirements,  and  being  fully  advised  that  it  is 
absolutely  necessary  for  the  protection  of  life  and  from  personal  injury  to 
persons  in  this  State,  that  proper  foot  guards  or  blocking  be  provided  for  all 
frogs,  guard  rails  and  the  heels  of  all  switch  points  in  all  switches,  and  the 
said  Board  of  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commissioners,  by  this  its  order,  do 
therefore  recommend  to  all  corporations,  or  person  or  persons,  owning  or 
operating  all  railroads  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  that  on  or  before  July  1,  1903, 
they  shall  provide  suitable  foot  guards  or  blocking  for  all  frogs,  guard  rails 
and  the  heels  of  all  switch  points  in  all  switches  in  the  State  of  Illinois. 

[Signed]     JAMES  S.  NEVILLE,  Chairman. 

ARTHUR  L.  FRENCH,  Commissioner. 


44 

BKFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 

C.  L.  Aygarn 

vs. 
The  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company. 

For  Discrimination  in  the  Distribution  of  Cars. 

The  evidence  in  this  case  was  taken  in  the  office  of  the  Commissioners  at 
Springfield,  111.,  on  Feb.  23,  1903. 

APPEARANCES : 

MAJOR   JAMES    CONNOLLY,   for   Complainant. 
JOHN  Q.  DRENNAN,  for  Defendant. 


There  was  a  great  amount  of  evidence  in  the  case  on  the  question  of  unjust 
discrimination  against  the  complainant  in  the  distribution  of  cars  for  ship- 
ment of  grain  at  Rooks  Creek  station  and  at  Rugby  station,  both  in  Living- 
ston county,  Illinois.  After  the  evidence  had  all  been  heard,  both  parties 
agreed  to  continue  the  case  and  take  depositions  at  Pontiac,  which  was  done 
and  the  evidence  all  brought  into  this  office  for  final  disposition. 

The  claim  is  that  the  Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co.  had  unjustly  discriminated 
against  the  complainant,  C.  L.  Aygarn,  in  the  distribution  of  cars  at  the 
above  mentioned  stations,  but  from  all  the  evidence  heard  in  the  case  we 
are  unable  to  find  anything  that  we  think  sufficient  on  which  to  base  an 
order  against  the  defendant  for  discrimination  and  therefore, 

It  is  hereby  ordered  by  the  commission,  that  the  complaint  be  dismissed. 

[Signed]     JAMES  S.  NEVILLE.  Chairman. 
A.  L.  FRENCH,  Commissioner. 

Springfield,  111.,  June  24,  1903. 


BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THK  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 


C.  L.  Aygarn, 

vs. 
The  Wabash  Railroad  Company. 

For  Discrimination  in  the  Distribution  of  Cars. 

Complainant  in  this  petition  alleged  that  the  defendant  on  Feb.  6,  1901, 
and  on  divers  dates  and  times  thereafter,  prior  to  the  filing  of  this  complaint, 
had  discriminated  against  him  in  the  distribution  of  cars  and  in  freight 
charges  at  Rowe  station,  Livingston  county,  Illinois.  The  case  was  brought 
for  hearing  before  the  commission  at  Springfield,  May  11,  1903. 

APPEARANCES : 

MAJOR   JAMES   CONNOLLY,   for   Complainant. 
MCANULTY  &  ALLEN,  for  Defendant. 


There  was  a  great  amount  of  evidence  heard  on  both  sides  but  the  evidence 
clearly  shows  that  there  were  three  grain  shippers  at  the  above  station,  viz.: 
Roger,  Bacon  &  Co.,  complainant  C.  L.  Aygarn  and  one  Whalen.  That  dur- 
ing the  time  mentioned,  complainant  C.  L.  Aygarn  had  received  more  than 
one-third  of  the  cars  loaded  at  that  place.  It  is  true  there  is  some  complaint 


45 

by  Mr.  Aygarn  that  at  times  when  he  had  grain  to  ship  the  defendant's 
agents  would  set  cars  to  the  other  elevators  and  afterwards  turn  them  over 
to  Mr.  Aygarn.  This  was  answered,  and  I  think  satisfactorily,  that  at  the 
times  of  said  complaint  Mr.  Aygarn  had  had  more  cars  than  the  other  ship- 
pers and  in  the  fair  distribution  of  cars  they  were  entitled  to  the  cars  in 
question,  but  after  the  cars  had  been  set  out  to  the  other  elevators  and  the 
companies  notified,  the  said  companies  did  not  load  the  said  cars  and  the 
agent  afterwards  notified  Mr.  Aygarn  that  he  could  use  the  cars,  which  he 
did  in  almost  every  instance. 

From  the  evidence  in  the  case,  we  are  unable  to  find  that  there  was  any 
unjust  discrimination  against  the  complainant  in  the  distribution  of  cars. 

There  is  also  a  complaint  that  at  different  times  the  defendant  had  over- 
charged the  complainant  on  grain  shipments.  One  instance,  a  load  of  oats 
shipped  from  Rowe  station  to  East  St.  Louis.  In  that  case  the  evidence 
shows  that  they  charged  the  complainant  on  several  thousand  pounds  more 
than  he  actually  shipped  and  that  he  should  be  paid  back.  There  were  also 
three  car  loads  of  grain  shipped  to  Louisville,  by  way  of  the  B.  &  O.  S.-W. 
R.  R.,  all  of  the  Wabash's  portion  of  the  haul  was  in  the  State  of  Illinois  and 
there  was  a  separate  charge  for  the  freight  on  the  Wabash  and  the  freight  on 
the  B.  &  O.  S.-W.  R.  R.,  and  it  was  admitted  at  the  trial  by  the  freight  agent 
of  the  defendant  company,  the  Wabash  R.  R.,  that  the  company  had  charged 
2  cents  a  100  pounds  more  than  was  right  on  those  cars  of  grain  and  that  the 
complainant  should  have  it  back. 

It  is  hereby  ordered  by  the  commission,  as  to  that  part  of  the  petition 
charging  a  discrimination  in  the  distribution  of  cars,  that  it  is  not  well 
taken,  and  as  to  that  part  we  find  for  the  defendant,  but,  as  to  the  question 
of  freight  charges  on  the  above  mentioned  shipments,  we  hold  that  the 
defendant,  the  Wabash  Railroad  Co.,  has  overcharged  the  complainant  and 
we  order  that  the  amount  overcharged  be  paid  back  to  the  complainant. 

[Signed]     JAMES    S.    NEVILLE,    Chairman. 
A.    L.    FRENCH.    Commissioner. 

Springfield,  111.,  June  24,  1903. 


The  Shirley  Farmers'  Grain  &  Coal  Co., 

vs. 

The  Chicago  &  Alton  Ry.  Co. 
Petition  for  track  connection  at  Shirley.  III. 

Petition  was  filed  in  the  above  entitled  case  before  this  commission,  June 
11,  1903,  and  site  viewed  on  June  15,  1903. 

Demurrer  was  filed  to  the  petition  on  that  day,  alleging  that  the  petition 
was  prematurely  filed  for  the  reason  that  there  was  no  elevator  then  in 
existence.  Demurrer  was  sustained  on  the  above  ground. 

Petition  filed  Sept.  4,  1903,  asking  leave  to  file  amended  petition.  Leave 
granted  and  amended  petition  filed  that  day.  Case  set  for  hearing  Sept.  12, 
1903,  at  the  office  of  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  in  Spring- 
field, 111. 

APPEARANCES : 

Bracken  &  Ewing  for  the  petitioner,  William  Brown  for  defendant,  and 
Judge  Thomas  F.  Tipton  appeared  for  J.  L.  Douglas  opposing  the  order  for 
permission  to  connect. 

On  the  trial  the  evidence  showed  clearly  that  the  petitioner  had  constructed 
an  elevator  adjoining  the  right  of  way  of  the  Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  Com- 
pany's tracks  at  Shirley,  111.,  within  50  feet  of  the  main  track  of  said  railway 
company.  That  there  was  no  other  railroad  in  that  vicinity  with  which  they 
could  connect  a  side  track  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  and  delivering  grain 
and  coal. 


40 

The  evidence  showed  further  that  their  elevator  was  now  completed  and 
ready  to  do  business  and  that  when  the  track  was  connected  with  the  track 
of  the  said  Chicago  &  Alton  Ry.  Co.,  they  could  receive  and  ship  grain  and 
coal,  the  grain  that  would  be  stored  in  their  elevator,  and  the  coal  for  sale  at 
their  elevator  and  in  their  coal  houses. 

The  defense  was  that  their  elevator  was  not  a  public  elevator  within  the 
meaning  of  the  statutes  and  for  that  reason  they  were  not  entitled  to  a  con- 
nection with  the  said  railway  company. 

The  statute  is  as  follows,  section  134: 

"That  public  warehouses  as  defined  in  article  13  of  the  Constitution  of  this 
State  shall  be  divided  into  three  classes,  to  be  designated  as  classes  A,  B  and 
C  respectively." 

Section  135,  "Public  warehouses  of  class  A  shall  embrace  all  warehouses, 
elevators  and  granaries  in  which  grain  is  stored  in  bulk  and  in  which  the 
grain  of  different  owners  is  mixed  together,  or  in  which  grain  is  stored  in 
such  manner  that  the  identity  of  different  lots  or  parcels  cannot  be  accu- 
rately preserved,  such  warehouses,  elevators  or  granaries  being  located  in 
cities  having  not  less  than  100,000  inhabitants.  Public  warehouses  of  class 
B  shall  embrace  all  other  warehouses,  elevators  or  granaries  in  which  grain 
is  stored  in  bulk  and  in  which  the  grain  of  different  owners  is  mixed  to- 
gether. Public  warehouses  of  class  C  shall  embrace  all  other  warehouses  or 
places  where  property  of  any  kind  is  stored  for  a  consideration." 

It  seems  from  the  reading  of  these  statutes  that  there  can  be  no  question 
that  the  above  mentioned  warehouse  or  elevator  is  a  public  warehouse.  The 
evidence  showing  conclusively  that  it  is  built  for  the  purpose  of  receiving, 
storing  and  shipping  grain,  coal  and  other  materials  generally  used  in  that 
kind  of  business,  from  said  elevator  at  Shirley,  Illinois. 

The. statute,  section  120  is  as  follows: 

"Every  railroad  corporation  which  shall  receive  any  grain  in  bulk  for 
transportation  to  any  place  within  the  State,  shall  transport  and  deliver  the 
same  to  any  consignee,  elevator,  warehouse  or  place  to  whom  or  to  which  it 
may  be  consigned  or  directed:  Provided,  such  person,  warehouse  or  place 
can  be  reached  by  any  track  owned,  leased  or  used,  or  which  can  be  used  by 
such  corporation;  and  every  corporation  shall  permit  connections  to  be  made 
and  maintained  with  its  track  to  and  from  any  and  all  public  warehouses 
where  grain  is  or  may  be  stored.  Any  such  corporation  neglecting  or  refus- 
ing to  comply  with  the  requirements  of  this  section,  shall  be  liable  to  all 
persons  injured  thereby  for  all  damages  which  they  may  sustain  on  that 
account,  whether  such  damages  result  from  any  depreciation  in  the  value  of 
such  property  by  such  neglect  or  refusal  to  deliver  such  grain  as  directed 
or  in  loss  to  the  proprietor  or  manager  of  any  public  warehouse  to  which  it 
is  directed  to  be  delivered  and  cost  of  suit,  including  such  reasonable  attor- 
ney's fees  as  shall  be  taxed  by  the  court.  And  in  case  of  any  second  or  later 
refusal  of  such  railroad  corporation  to  comply  with  the  requirements  of  this 
section,  such  corporation  shall  be  by  the  court,  in  the  action  on  which  such 
failure  or  refusal  shall  be  found,  adjudged  to  pay  for  the  use  of  the  People 
of  this  State,  a  sum  not  less  than  $1,000  nor  more  than  $5,000  for  each  and 
every  failure  or  refusal,  and  this  may  be  a  part  of  the  judgment  of  the  court 
in  any  second  or  later  proceeding  against  such  corporation.  In  case  any 
railroad  corporation  shall  be  found  guilty  of  having  violated,  failed  or  omitted 
to  observe  and  comply  with  the  requirements  of  this  section  or  any  part 
thereof,  three  or  more  times,  it  shall  be  lawful  for  any  person  interested  to 
apply  to  a  court  of  chancery  and  obtain  the  appointment  of  a  receiver  to 
take  charge  of  and  manage  such  railroad  corporation  until  all  damages,  pen- 
alties, costs  and  expenses  adjudged  against  such  corporation  for  any  and 
every  violation  shall,  together  with  interest  be  fully  satisfied." 

It  would  seem  from  the  statutes  that  the  petitioners,  who  are  a  corporation 
and  doing  business  as  an  elevator  company — buying,  receiving,  storing  and 
selling  and  shipping  grain  and  coal,  are  entitled  under  the  above  section  to 
be  permitted  to  connect  and  maintain  a  connection  with  the  track  of  the 
Chicago  &  Alton  Ry.  Co.  at  or  near  its  said  elevator  at  Shirley,  Illinois. 

It  is  therefore  ordered  by  the  commission  that  the  Shirley  Farmers'  Grain 
&  Coal  Company  be  permitted  to  make  connections  with  the  track  of  the 


47 

Chicago  &  Alton  Ry.  Co.  at  a  convenient  point  near  their  elevator  at  Shirley, 
Illinois,  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  and  shipping  grain  and  coal  and  other 
materials,  as  provided  by  the  statutes  and  constitution  of  the  State  of  Illinois; 
and  that  in  making  said  connection,  that  they  shall  do  the  same  in  a  way  that 
will  not  unnecessarily  interfere  with  the  tracks  and  traffic  of  said  Chicago  & 
Alton  Ry.  Co.  That  they  .shall  give  reasonable  notice  to  the  said  Chicago 
&  Alton  Ry.  Co.  of  their  intention  so  to  do. 

It  is  further  ordered  by  the  said  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  that 
if  the  said  Chicago  &  Alton  Ry.  Co.  desire  to  make  an  extension  of  their 
side  track  at  Shirley,  the  south  end  of  which  is  about  1,000  feet  north  of  the 
above  company's  elevator,  that  they  shall  have  the  right  to  do  so,  and  that 
the  Shirley  Farmers'  Grain  &  Coal  Company  shall  pay  for  said  connection,  a 
reasonable  cost  of  constructing  and  connection  and  switch  of  the  proper 
length  to  enable  them  to  do  their  business  properly  at  their  said  elevator. 

[Signed]     J.  S.  NEVILLE,  Chairman. 

A.    L.     FRENCH,    Commissioner. 

Springfield,  111.,  Sept.  22,  1903. 


BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  or  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 

Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Railway  Company,  Complainant, 

vs. 
Freeport  Railway,  Light  and  Power  Company,  Respondent. 

Crossing  Case. 

FINDINGS    AND    DECISIONS   OF   THE    COMMISSION. 

JAMES  S.  NEVILLE,  Chairman. 

On  Oct.  20,  1903,  the  complainant,  Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Railway 
Company,  duly  filed  with  the  commission  its  verified  petition,  alleging  in 
substance  that  it  was  a  railway  corporation  owning  and  operating  a  line  of 
steam  railroads  into  and  through  the  city  and  township  of  Freeport,  in 
Stephenson  county,  Illinois,  over  which  it  was  a  common  carrier  of  freight 
and  passengers;  that  the  respondent,  Freeport  Railway,  Light  and  Power 
Company  was  a  corporation  organized  and  existing  under  the  laws  of  Illinois, 
and  owning  and  operating  by  electric  motive  power  a  railroad  extending 
along  and  upon  certain  streets  of  said  city  and  certain  public  highways  of 
said  township,  over  which  it  was  a  common  carrier  of  passengers,  freight  and 
express,  under  authority  and  permission  from;  the  city  council  of  said  city 
and  the  board  of  supervisors  of  said  county,  respectively;  that  said  electric 
railroad  intersected  and  crossed  at  grade  the  steam  railroad  track  of  com- 
plainant, upon  a  public  highway  of  said  township  commonly  called  Shawnee 
street,  and  just  outside  of  the  city  limits;  that  the  location,  grade  and  curves 
of  both  said  tracks  were  such  as  to  make  a  surface  crossing  at  that  place 
unavoidably  and  extremefy  dangerous  to  life  and  property;  that  a  safe  and 
practicable  overhead  crossing  could  be  made  in  the  vicinity,  and  that  the 
complainant  had  at  all  times  objected  to  and  protested  against  such  grade 
crossing,  without  avail;  said  petition  prayed  that  the  board  would  hear  the 
matter,  and  determine  and  order  the  place  where  and  the  manner  in  which 
such  crossing  should  be  made,  and  particularly  would  forbid  respondent 
from  continuing  to  cross  at  grade  in  said  Shawnee  street. 

The  commission  thereupon  assumed  jurisdiction  of  the  matter  of  said  com- 
plaint, and  set  the  case  for  hearing  at  the  office  of  said  Railroad  and  Ware- 


48 

house  Commission  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  111.,  on  Oct.  31,  1903,  at  9:00  o'clock 
a.  m.,  and  caused  due  and  legal  notice  thereof  to  be  given  to  said  respondent 
company. 

At  the  time  and  place  fixed  for  said  hearing  the  parties  appeared;  com- 
plainant being  represented  by  its  solicitor,  and  the  respondent  by  Judge  S. 
P.  Shope,  its  solicitor;  and  thereupon  respondent's  solicitor  requested  an 
adjournment  of  the  hearing  to  a  later  day,  in  order  to  give  him  further  time 
to  look  into  the  case,  which  request  was  granted  by  the  board,  and  the 
hearing  was  thereupon  duly  adjourned  to  Nov.  13,  1903,  at  9:00  a.  m.,  at  the 
same  place. 

Afterwards,  on  Nov.  13,  1903,  the  board  met  at  the  place  and  hour  ap- 
pointed and  again  called  said  case  for  hearing;  the  complainant  appearing 
by  Charles  B.  Keeler,  its  solicitor,  and  respondent's  solicitor,  Judge  S.  P. 
Shope  and  Alpheus  J.  Goddard,  its  secretary  being  also  present,  but  declin- 
ing to  enter  formal  appearance  or  make  answer  in  said  cause  and  objecting 
to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  board.  Thereupon  the  board  held  that  it  had  juris- 
diction of  the  parties  and  subject  matter  of  this  proceeding,  and  received  and 
heard  the  oral  and  documentary  evidence  offered  therein. 

The  statute  of  Illinois  (Act  of  May  27,  1889)  provides:  "That  hereafter 
any  railroad  company  desiring  to  cross  with  its  tracks  the  main  line  of  an- 
other railroad  company,  shall  construct  the  crossing  at  such  place  and  in 
such  manner  as  will  not  unnecessarily  impede  or  endanger  the  travel  or 
transportation  upon  the  railway  so  crossed.  If  in  any  case  objection  be 
made  to  the  place  or  mode  of  crossing  proposed  by  the  company  desiring  the 
same,  either  party  may  apply  to  the  Board  of  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Com- 
missioners and  it  shall  be  their  duty  to  view  the  ground,  and  give  all  parties 
interested  an  opportunity  to  be  heard.  After  full  investigation,  and  with  due 
regard  to  safety  of  life  and  property,  said  board  shall  give  a  decision  pre- 
scribing the  place  where  and  the  manner  in  which  said  crossing  shall  be 
made,  etc." 

The  respondent  is  a  corporation  organized  under  the  laws  of  Illinois,  with 
power  to  generate,  distribute  and  sell  electrical  current  for  lighting,  heating, 
power  and  other  purposes;  and  to  construct,  own,  operate  and  maintain  it 
street  railway  in  Freeport  and  vicinity  to  be  operated  by  electricity  or  other 
motive  power.  The  franchise  from  the  county  board  of  supervisors,  under 
which  it  is  maintaining  and  operating  its  electric  railroad  along  the  town- 
ship highway  and  over  the  crossing  in  question,  expressly  authorizes  it  to  do 
a  passenger,  freight,  mail  and  express  business.  Its  track  is  required  to  be 
of  standard  gauge  and  laid  with  T  rails.  It  must  be  assumed  that  the  com- 
pany will  exercise  all  the  powers  granted  to  it. 

Lieberman  vs.  Chgo.  Rapid  Transit  R.  R.  Co.,  141  111.,  p.  152. 
Goddard  vs.  C.  <{•  N.  W.  Ry.  Co.,  104  111.  App..  p.  532-3. 

Is  the  respondent  a  "railroad  company"  within  the  intent  and  meaning  of 
the  above  statute?  As  early  as  1859  the  Supreme  Court  of  Illinois  referred 
to  street  railroads  as  falling  within  the  general  designation  of  "railroads," 
and  held  that  the  mere  difference  in  motive  power  did  not  effect  such  classi- 
fication. 

Moses  vs.  P.  -F.  W.  <(•  C.  R.  R.  Co.,  21  111.,  p.  522-3. 

In  1860  the  court  held  that  a  statute  authorizing  all  railroads  incorporated 
in  the  State,  to  connect  and  make  running  arrangements  with  each  other, 
included  horse  as  well  as  steam  railroads,  saying: 

"This  language  is  manifestly  sufficiently  comprehensive  to  embrace  horse 
railways  as  well  as  railroads  whose  cars  are  propelled  by  steam  or  other 
power,  as  well  as  roads  authorized  to  transport  passengers  only,  as  roads 
authorized  to  transport  passengers  and  freight  by  other  power.  The  lan- 
guage of  the  enactment  embraces  all  roads  then  organized,  as  well  as  those 
which  might  afterwards  become  so  and  the  Act  makes  no  distinction,  or 
reservation  as  to  the  character  of  the  railroad.  The  members  of  the  General 
Assembly  were  fully  aware  that  these  various  roads  existed,  and  if  any  roads 
answering  either  description,  were  not  designed  to  be  embraced,  they  would, 
it  appears  to  us,  have  limited  the  operation  of  the  Act  so  as  to  have  excluded 
them.  Horse  city  railways  unquestionably  fall  within  the  description  of 


49 

the  class  of  subjects  of  which  they  were  legislating.  They  are,  in  every  sense 
of  the  term,  railroads;  they  are  incorporated  under  the  laws  of  the  State,  and 
are  embraced  within  the  language  of  the  statute,  and  we  have  no  doubt 
within  its  spirit." 

City  of  Chicago  vs.  Evans,  24  111.,  p.  55-6. 

In  1892  the  same  court,  construing  an  Act  for  the  organization  of  corpora- 
tions for  the  purpose  of  constructing  and  operating  any  railroad  in  this 
State,  held  that  it  also  included  elevated  railroads,  saying: 

"We  are  able  to  perceive  no  reasons  why  the  word  'railroad'  as  here  used, 
should  not  be  construed  to  apply  to  elevated  railroads  as'  well  as  to  any 
other." 

Lieberman  vs.  Chicago  Rapid  Transit  R.  R.  Co.,  141  111.,  p.  147.- 

And  in  considering  the  status  of  an  electric  street  railroad,  under  the 
statutes  of  Illinois,  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Seventh 
Circuit,  said: 

"The  fact  that  its  trains  are  to  be  operated  by  electricity  instead  of  steam, 
does  not  effect  its  place  in  the  laws  of  the  State  as  a  railroad  company." 
Malott,  Receiver,  vs.  Electric  Ry.  Co.,  108  Fed.  Reporter,  p.  318. 

In  New  York  it  was  held  that  the  crossing  of  steam  railroads  by  electric 
street  railways,  came  within  the  statute  of  that  state  providing  for  the  ap- 
pointment of  commissioners  to  determine  the  manner  in  which  railroads 
should  cross  each  other.  The  language  of  the  statute  was,  "every  railroad 
corporation,"  and  it  was  held  to  include  electric  street  railways  as  well  as 
steam  railroads. 

Elec.  R.  R.  Co.  vs.  Rapid  Transit  R.  R.  Co.,  24  N.  Y.  Supp.,   566 
affirmed  in  144  N.  Y.,  445. 

In  1902,  the  New  York  Court  of  Appeals  in  an  elaborate  opinion,  held  that 
a  statute  requiring  "every  railroad  corporation"  whose  road  was  intersected 
by  any  "new  railroad,"  to  unite  with  the  latter  in  providing  necessary  inter- 
sections and  facilities,  was  applicable  to  electric  street  surface  railroads 
crossing  steam  railroads,  and  vice  versa.  This  decision  is  directly  in  point. 
St.  Ry.  Co.  vs.  B.  &  M.  R.  R.  Co.,  64  N.  E.  Reporter,  511. 

In  Pennsylvania,  the  Act  of  1871  empowered  Court  of  Equity  to  prevent 
one  "railroad  company"  crossing  the  tracks  of  another  at  grade,  if  reasonably 
practicable  to  avoid  a  surface  crossing,  and  the  Supreme  Court  held  that  the 
statute  applied  to  electric  street  railroads  seeking  to  cross  at  grade  the  tracks 
of  a  steam  railroad. 

Pa.  R.  R.  Co.  vs.  Braddock  Elec.  Ry.  Co.,  25  Attl.  Reptr.,  780;  s.  c.  152 
Pa.  St.,  116. 

In  Iowa,  it  was  held  that  a  statute  regarding  the  appropriation  of  right  of 
way  for  "railroad"  companies,  applied  to  horse  as  well  as  steam  roads.    The 
court  quote  and  approve  City  of  Chicago  vs.  Evans,  24  111.,  52,  supra. 
City  of  Clinton  vs.  Ry.  Co.,  37  Iowa,  61. 

In  Vermont,  a  street  railway  company  authorized  to  carry  freight  and  pas- 
sengers was  held  to  be  a  railroad  company  within  the  meaning  of  the  statute 
regulating  the  crossing  or  connection  of  one  "railroad"  by  another. 
R.  R.  Co.  vs.  St.  Ry.  Co.,  50  Atl.  Reptr.,  p.  637. 

In  Wisconsin,  it  is  held  that  electric  street  railroads  carrying  passengers, 
freight,  mail  and  express  matter,  and  running  upon  country  as  well  as  city 
highways,  (like  the  respondent  in  this  case),  was  to  all  intents  and  purposes 
an  ordinary  commercial  railroad. 

R.  R.  Co.  vs.  Elec.  R.  R.  Co.,  95  Wis.,  561. 
Zehren  vs.  Elec.  Rl.  &  Light  Co.,  99  Wis.,  83. 

This  question  was  before  the  former  board,  in  a  similar  crossing  case,  and 
it  was  there  held  that  an  electric  railway  was  a  "railroad"  within  the  mean- 
ing of  the  statute.  (C.  d  A.  Ry.  Co.  vs.  Alton  Ry.  &  111.  Co.  Decisions  of 
the  Commission,  Vol.  1,  p.  337).  The  board  has  also  assumed  jurisdiction  in 
later  cases,  over  like  crossing  of  electric  railroads  with  steam  roads.  Under 
the  above  authorities  we  see  no  reason  to  change  our  former  holdings  in  that 
respect. 

-40 


No  valid  reason  can  be  urged  why  electric  railroads  running  upon  country 
highways  and  doing  a  passenger,  freight,  mail  and  express  business,  should 
not  come  within  the  purview  of  the  above  statute.  They  are  common  car- 
riers, doing  a  general  transportation  business,  and  substantially  like  ordinary 
commercial  railroads,  except  as  to  motive  power  and  some  other  details.  The 
plain  object  and  spirit  of  the  statute  was  to  secure  protection  to  persons  and 
property  at  railroad  crossings,  and  it  is  clear  that  the  danger  of  accident  is 
just  as  great  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other.  Indeed,  electric  roads  often  run 
at  greater  speed  in  the  country  than  ordinary  railroad  trains;  collisions  be- 
tween steam  and  electric  cars  are  becoming  more  frequent,  and  are  often 
attended  with  great  loss  of  life  and  property.  The  dangers  intended  to  be 
guarded  against  by  the  statute  are  precisely  the  same  in  the  case  of  this 
crossing  as  in  any  other  railroad  crossing.  How  such  dangers  arise — that  is, 
from  what  particular  kind  of  motive  power  or  cars — is  manifestly  immaterial. 
The  statute  should  be  so  interpreted  as  to  carry  out  its  plain  object  and 
intent,  and  we  therefore  hold  that  it  confers  upon  this  board  jurisdiction 
over  the  subject  matter  of  the  present  controversy  and  that  jurisdiction  of 
the  parties  has  been  duly  acquired. 

Before  considering  the  merits,  it  is  necessary  to  state  the  prior  proceedings 
relative  to  this  crossing,  as  disclosed  by  the  evidence.  In  June,  1901,  Al- 
pheus  P.  and  Alpheus  J.  Goddard  applied  for  and  procured  from  said  board 
of  supervisors  a  franchise  to  construct  and  operate  an  electric  street  railway 
for  the  transportation  of  passengers,  freight,  mail  and  express  upon  said 
township  highway,  known  as  Shawnee  street,  and  were  about  to  lay  their 
track  at  grade,  over  the  crossing  in  question,  when  said  Chicago,  Milwaukee 
&  St.  Paul  Railway  Company  (complainant  herein),  on  Nov.  18,  1901,  filed 
with  this  board  its  verified  petition  against  said  Goddards,  setting  up  the 
dangerous  character  of  such  proposed  crossing,  and  praying  that  the  com- 
mission would  determine  and  prescribe  the  place  and  manner  of  crossing,  as 
provided  by  the  statute.  The  board  fixed  a  time  and  place  for  the  hearing, 
duly  notified  the  parties  thereof,  and  on  Nov.  21,  1901,  personally  visited  and 
inspected  the  grounds  in  company  with  both  parties.  Afterwards,  on  Dec.  2, 
1901,  said  A.  P.  and  A.  J.  Goddard  filed  their  bill  in  equity  and  procured 
from  the  circuit  court  in  Stephenson  county  a  temporary  writ  of  injunction, 
without  notice,  restraining  said  C.,  M.  &  St.  P.  Ry.  Co.  from  interfering 
with  or  preventing  such  grade  crossing  of  its  track  at  that  place,  and  under 
cover  of  such  injunction  put  in  the  present  crossing  and  began  to  operate  the 
same.  Afterwards,  on  Dec.  5,  1901,  and  at  the  time  and  place  previously 
fixed,  this  board  publicly  heard  the  matter  of  said  complaint  (the  Goddards 
having  appeared  and  filed  their  sworn  answer,  setting  up  that  they  had  a 
good  defense  on  the  merits,  and  the  commission  has  no  jurisdiction),  and 
after  hearing  the  evidence,  found  that  such  proposed  grade  crossing  was  un- 
necessarily dangerous  and  would  unnecessarily  impede  and  endanger  the 
travel  and  transportation  upon  petitioner's  steam  railroad,  and  that  the 
proper  and  safe  place  and  manner  of  crossing  would  be  at  another  highway 
and  by  an  overhead  bridge;  and  this  board  thereupon  duly  ordered  said  God- 
dards not  to  cross  petitioner's  track  at  grade  in  said  Shawnee  street,  but 
overhead  and  at  Adams  street,  upon  an  existing  highway  bridge,  and  gave 
due  notice  of  such  finding  and  order  to  said  Goddards,  as  more  fully  appears 
by  reference  to  the  record  of  the  board  in  that  case. 

That  afterwards  such  proceedings  were  had  in  the  injunction  suit  that  said 
circuit  court  of  April  4,  1902,  dissolved  the  injunction  and  dismissed  said  bill 
for  want  of  equity,  but  ordered  that  the  preliminary  injunction  should  remain 
in  force  pending  an  appeal  by  the  Goddards,  then  prayed  and  allowed:  That 
such  decree  was  afterwards  appealed  to  and  affirmed  by  the  appellate  court 
for  the  Second  district,  (Goddard  et  al  vs.  C.,  M.  &  St.  P.  Ry.  Co.,  102  111., 
App.,  533)  and  on  April  24,  1903,  was  finally  affirmed  by  the  Supreme  Court 
of  Illinois  upon  further  appeal  (A.  P.  Goddard  et  al  vs.  C.,  M.  d-  St.  P.  Ry. 
Co.,  202  111.,  452):  And  that  on  or  about  June  20,  1903,  the  precendo  and 
mandate  of  said  Supreme  Court  was  filed  in  the  circuit  court  of  Stephenson 
county,  and  said  suit  was  thereupon  ended  and  said  injunction  was  finally 
dissolved. 


It  further  appears  that  on  January  13,  1903,  and  pending  their  above  ap- 
peals, said  Alpheus  P.  and  Alpheus  J.  Goddard  with  one  Wm.  N.  Conkrite, 
organized  a  corporation  under  the  laws  of  Illinois,  called  the  "Freeport  Elec- 
tric Company"  with  power  to  acquire,  own  and  operate  a  line  of  electric  street 
railroad  in  the  city  and  the  township  of  Freeport,  and  also  to  generate,  dis- 
tribute and  sell  electrical  current  for  light,  heat  and  power  purposes:  On 
May  27,  1903,  its  name  was  duly  changed  to  "Freeport  Railway,  Light  & 
Power  Company"  (the  present  respondent)  and  on  June  1,  1903,  said  God- 
dards  sold  and  by  deed  conveyed  to  said  "Freeport  Railway,  Light  &  Power 
Company"  this  electric  railroad,  together  with  all  property,  rights,  grants 
and  privileges  of  said  Goddards  under  franchises  of  said  city  and  board  of 
supervisors,  so  that  said  last  named  company  became  and  still  remains  the 
owner  of  the  electric  road  in  controversy  and  continues  to  operate  it  along 
Shawnee  street  and  over  said  crossing  at  grade,  as  before:  Alpheus  P.  God- 
dard is  the  president  and  Alpheus  J.  Goddard  is  the  secretary  of  the  new 
company,  and  both  are  directors. 

We  therefore  find  that  the  present  complainant  has  prosecuted  this  pro- 
ceeding with  due  diligence,  and  that  the  rights  of  the  parties  are  the  same  as 
if  the  existing  crossing  at  this  place  had  not  been  previously  put  in,  but  was 
in  contemplation.  It  is  clear  that  respondent  had  legal  notice  of  the  forego- 
ing facts. 

Coming  now  to  the  merits  of  the  controversy,  it  appears  that  this  crossing 
is  in  precisely  the  same  condition  as  when  the  board  visited  and  inspected 
the  ground,  except  that  the  electric  track  is  in  and  being  operated.  In  all 
other  respects  the  situation  is  the  same,  as  conceded  by  the  parties  and 
shown  by  the  photographs  and  other  evidence.  The  commission  did  not, 
therefore,  deem  it  necessary  to  again  visit  the  place. 

The  evidence  establishes  that  this  grade  crossing  is  exceedingly  dangerous 
to  life  and  property.  Seventy-one  feet  of  complainant's  right  of  way  includ- 
ing its  railroad  track,  lie  outside  of  the  city  limits,  and  cross  the  township 
highway  known  as  Shawnee  street,  at  right  angles.  In  approaching  this 
crossing  from  the  south  the  steam  railroad  curves  sharply  near  the  crossing, 
and  also  descends  by  a  heavy  grade  for  a  distance  of  about  3.000  feet  to 
the  crossing  itself;  this  grade  is  about  1  4-10  per  cent  at  first,  and  then 
increases  to  1  9-10  per  cent,  or  about  100  feet  to  the  mile,  for  the  last  900 
feet  of  that  distance,  making  it  very  difficult  under  the  most  favorable  condi- 
tions, and  with  heavy  or  fast  trains  practically  impossible  to  stop  in  time 
to  avoid  collisions  at  such  crossing.  Just  north,  and  only  about  100  feet  or 
so  distant  from  this  crossing,  complainant's  track  passes  under  the  elevated 
roadway  and  tracks  of  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company,  through  a 
narrow  opening  13  feet  wide,  and  then  curves  sharply  to  the  west,  on  an 
ascending  grade.  This  elevation  is  a  solid  earth  embankment,  (except  at 
such  narrow  subway)  about  20  feet  in  height,  and  extends  in  a  slightly 
southeasterly  direction,  completely  shutting  off  the  view  of  Milwaukee  trains 
approaching  from  the  north,  until  they  emerge  from  the  subway  and  are 
close  to  the  crossing.  Such  trains  must  attain  considerable  speed  and  mo- 
mentum before  passing  under  this  Illinois  Central  embankment  in  order  to 
climb  the  heavy  grade  to  the  south,  so  that  the  engineer  cannot  see  this 
highway  crossing  and  approaching  electric  cars,  or  check  his  speed,  in  time 
to  avoid  threatened  collisions.  Experiments  made  by  a  locomotive  engineer 
show  that  when  entering  the  north  end  of  the  subway,  coming  south,  he  can 
only  see  about  15  feet  on  each  side  of  the  Milwaukee  track  at  this  crossing, 
and  then  it  is  too  late  to  stop  or  materially  check  the  speed  of  the  train.  It 
is  obvious  that  if  an  electric  car  should  become  derailed,  or  the  trolley  dis- 
connected, upon  or  close  to  this  crossing,  a  serious  accident  is  liable  to  occur 
at  any  time. 

And  the  danger  is  still  further  increased  by  the  location  and  grade  of  thi 
public  highway  and  electric  track  thereon.  Approaching  the  crossing  from 
the  west  or  city  side,  this  highway  and  track  descend  to  about  the  crossing 
itself,  and  then  slightly  ascend  and  curve,  running  parallel  to  and  near  the 
southerly  side  of  said  Illinois  Central  elevated  embankment,  for  several  hun- 
dred feet,  when  both  highway  and  electric  track  turn  sharply  north  and  pass 
under  said  high  enbankment.  As  electric  cars  run  in  both  directions,  the 


52 

risk  of  accident  at  this  crossing  is  almost  equally  great  from  both  approaches. 
The  photographs,  plates,  profiles  and  oral  evidence  abundantly  show  that  this 
surface  crossing  is  exceptionally  dangerous. 

The  electric  road  comes  east  on  Empire  street  to  its  termination  near  the 
city  limits,  then  turns  north  on  Bauscher  street  to  Adams  street,  thence  north- 
west on  Adams  to  Chippewa  street,  thence  north  on  Chippewa  to  Shawnee 
street,  and  then  east  on  said  Shawnee  street  down  to  and  over  the  crossing 
in  question.  Empire  street  is  five  blocks  south  of  this  crossing  and  the  inter- 
section of  Bauscher  and  Adams  streets  is  three  blocks  south.  From  either 
point  the  engineer's  surveys  show  three  feasible  and  practicable  routes  across 
complainant's  right  of  way  and  track,  by  overhead  bridges  at  favorable 
points  where  the  steam  railroad  lies  in  a  long  cut  and  thence  to  the  highway 
called  Arcade  avenue  on  the  east  side,  extending  directly  to  the  electric 
underground  crossing  of  the  Illinois  Central  tracks.  One  of  these  routes  is 
by  the  way  of  Adams  street  which  now  crosses  complainant's  track  by  an 
overhead  bridge,  and  the  others  require  the  erection  of  overhead  bridges, 
but  are  shorter  in  distance  and  more  direct.  All  the  routes  require  less 
grades  for  operation  than  some  of  those  now  existing  on  respondent's  line 
of  road  in  the  city  of  Freeport.  It  is  possible  to  cross  overhead  at  any  other 
point  south  of  the  present  Shawnee  street  crossing,  if  desired.  For  most  of 
the  distance  to  Adame  street,  the  land  is  vacant  and  unimproved  for  several 
hundred  feet  on  each  side  of  complainant's  track. 

The  policy  and  wisdom  of  avoiding  grade  crossings  wherever  practicable  is 
peculiarly  applicable  to  the  present  situation,  as  disclosed  by  the  proofs  and 
by  personal  inspection  of  the  ground  by  this  board. 

For  the  above  reasons  we  find  and  hold  that  the  present  crossing  at  Shaw- 
nee street  is  necessarily  and  extremely  dangerous,  and  will  unnecessarily 
impede  and  endanger  the  travel  and  transportation  upon  complainant's  rail- 
road, and  also  endanger  that  upon  the  electric  railroad  of  respondent  itself. 
That  the  proper  and  safe  manner  of  crossing  is  by  an  overhead  bridge,  and 
the  proper  place  thereof  is  at  said  Adams  street,  or  at  some  point  between 
there  and  Shawnee  street,  as  respondent  may  select. 

It  is  therefore  ordered  by  the  board  that  the  respondent — Freeport  Railway, 
Light  &  Power  Company — cross  with  its  electric  track  or  tracks  over  the 
railroad  track  and  right  of  way  of  said  Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Rail- 
way Company,  near  Freeport,  111.,  by  an  overhead  bridge  crossing,  and  at  the 
public  highway  known  as  Adams  street,  or  at  some  point  between.said  Adams 
street  and  ,Shawnee  street,  to  be  selected  by  respondent  in  writing,  filed  with 
the  board  within  30  days  from  the  filing  of  this  decision.  Such  overhead 
crossing  to  leave  22  feet  in  the  clear  between  the  top  rails  of  complainant's 
track  and  the  lower  part  of  the  superstructure  of  said  bridge.  And  said 
Freeport  Railway,  Light  &  Power  Company  is  hereby  ordered  not  to  cross  or 
continue  to  cross  at  grade  in  said  Shawnee  street. 

It  is  further  ordered  that  said  respondent — Freeport  Railway,  Light  & 
Power  Company — pay  the  entire  costs  of  the  construction  and  maintenance  of 
such  overhead  crossing,  including  approaches;  and  that  respondent  also  pay 
the  costs  of  this  proceeding  before  the  commission. 

Dated  at  Springfield,  111.,  this  30th  day  of  November,  A.  D.  1903. 

[Signed.]     J.  S.  NEVILLE,  Chairman. 

ARTHUR  L.  FRENCH,  Commissioner. 


PROTECTION  OF  FROGS,  GUARD  RAILS,  HEELS  OF  SWITCHES,  ETC. 

SPRINGFIELD,  ILL.,  April  8,  1903. 

'  At  the  regular  monthly  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Railroad  and  Warehouse 
Commissioners  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  held  at  their  office  in  Springfield, 
Illinois,  this  8th  day  of  April,  1903,  the  matter  of  the  proper  protection  of 
all  frogs,  guard  rails  and  the  heels  of  all  switch  points  by  foot  guards  or 
blocking,  as  set  forth  in  their  circular  letter  of  Feb.  10,  1903,  and  the 
hearing  of  the  case  before  the  board  on  Feb.  24,  1903,  was  taken  up  for 
final  decision. 


53 

From  the  files  of  the  board,  as  to  reports  of  personal  injuries,  and  from 
the  statements  of  the  construction  and  operating  departments  of  a  large 
percentage  of  the  railroads  of  our  State,  as  developed  at  the  hearing,  that 
it  is  necessary  as  a  measure  of  protection  to  the  lives  or  serious  injury  of 
persons,  more  especially  of  employes  in  the  operating  departments  of  our 
railroads,  that  all  frogs,  guard  rails  and  the  heels  of  all  switch  points  in  all 
switches  in  this  State  be  protected  by  foot  guards  or  blocking. 

It  is  therefore  ordered  by  said  Board  of  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Com- 
missioners that  under  the  provisions  of  "An  Act  to  establish  a  Board  of 
Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commissioners,  and  prescribe  their  powers  and 
duties"  (approved  April  13,  1871,  in  force  July  1,  1871),  section  ll1/^,  and 
after  full  compliance  with  all  its  requirements,  and  being  fully  advised, 
that  it  is  absolutely  necessary  for  the  protection  of  life  and  from  personal 
injury  to  persons  in  this  State,  that  proper  foot  guards  or  blocking  be 
provided  for  all  frogs,  guard  rails  and  the  heels  of  all  switch  points  in  all 
switches,  and  the  said  Board  of  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commissioners 
by  this,  its  order,  do  therefore  recommend  to  all  corporations,  or  person  or 
persons  owning  or  operating  all  railroads  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  that  on 
or  before  the  1st  day  of  July,  1903,  they  shall  provide  suitable  foot  guards 
or  blocking  for  all  frogs,  guard  rails  and  the  heels  of  all  switch  points  in 
all  switches  in  the  State  of  Illinois. 

[Signed]     JAMES  S.  NEVILLE, 
AKTHUB  L.  FBENCH, 

Commissioners. 


BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 


The  Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  Company 

vs. 
St.  Louis  &  Springfield  Railway  Company. 


This  cause  coming  on  again  to  be  heard  upon  the  petition  and  objections 
of  the  Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  Company  to  the  place  and  manner  of  cross- 
ing the  risht  of  way  and  railroad  main  tracks  of  said  The  Chicago  &  Alton 
Railway  Company  by  the  tracks  of  the  said  St.  Louis  &  Springfield  Railway 
Company,  said  The  Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  Company,  appearing  by  F.  S. 
Winston,  its  general  solicitor,  and  it  appearing  that  said  St.  Louis  &  Spring- 
field Railway  Company  has  submitted  to  the  jurisdiction  of  this  board  and 
filed  its  answer  herein,  and  this  board  having  viewed  the  ground  and 
given  all  parties  interested  an  opportunity  to  be  heard,  this  board,  after 
full  investigation  and  with  due  regard  to  the  safety  of  life  and  property, 
hereby  decides  that  said  St.  Louis  &  Springfield  Railway  Company  shall 
cross  the  right  of  way  and  railroad  main  tracks  of  The  Chicago  &  Alton 
Railway  Company  by  means  of  a  subway  or  under-crossing,  and 

It  is  therefore  ordered  as  follows: 

1.  That  said   St.  Louis  &  Springfield  Railway  Company  shall  cross  the 
right  of  way  and  main  railroad  tracks  of  The  Chicago  &  Alton   Railway 
Company  at  Carlinville,  in  the  county  of  Macopin,  in  the  State  of  Illinois, 
at  the  place  shown  on  the  blue  print  attached  to  Exhibit  "A"  to  the  petition 
of  said  The  Chicago  &  Alton  Railroad  Company. 

2.  That  said  crossing  shall  be  made  by  means  of  a  subway,  and  that  the 
same   shall   be   constructed   by   the   said    St.   Louis    &    Springfield    Railway 
Company. 

3.  That  said  subway  or  under-crossing  shall  be  made  without  disturbing 
or  changing  the  grade  of  the  tracks  of  said  The  Chicago  &  Alton  Railway 
Company,  and  said  subway  shall  be  provided  with  necessary  stone  or  con- 
crete abutments,  carrying  the  track  of  the  said  The  Chicago  &  Alton  Rail- 


54 

way  Company  on  a  steel  bridge  of  the  standard  of  construction  of  said 
The  Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  Company  for  bridges  of  such  length.  The 
said  subway  and  bridges  shall  be  constructed  in  such  manner  as  not  to 
unnecessarily  interfere  with  the  operation  of  the  trains,  engines  and  cars 
of  said  The  Chicago  *fe  Alton  Railway  Company  over  the  same  during  the 
period  of  such  construction.  Said  jSt.  Louis  &  Springfield  Railway  Com- 
pany shall  furnish  all  necessary  false  work  for  the  purpose  of  supporting 
the  tracks  of  The  Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  Company  during  such  con- 
struction. The  width  between  the  walls  of  the  subway  shall  be  sufficient 
to  provide  for  one  or  two  tracks  of  the  St.  Louis  &  Springfield  Railway 
Company,  but  not  to  exceed  two  tracks,  and  the  head-room  in  said  subway 
shall  be  such  as  the  said  St.  Louis  &  Springfield  Railway  Company  may 
desire,  not,  however,  exceeding  twenty  (20)  feet.  The  said  subway  and 
the  abutments  and  bridges  thereof  shall  be  constructed  in  a  good  and 
workmanlike  manner  and  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  engineer*  of  this  board. 

4.  That  the  said  The  Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  Company  shall  pay  said 
St.  Louis  &  Springfield  Railway  Company,  when  said  work  is  completed,  the 
sum  of  three  thousand  dollars   ($3,000),  and  the  remainder  of  the  cost  of 
such  work  shall  be  borne  and  paid  by  said  St.  Louis  &  Springfield  Railway 
Company. 

5.  The  board  hereby  reserves  to  itself  jurisdiction  of  the  parties  hereto 
and   of  the   subject   matter   hereof   until    the   full    completion    of   the   said 
under-crossing,  subway  and  bridges,   for  the  purpose  of  carrying  into  full 
force  and  effect  the  terms  and  provisions  of  this  order,  with  the  right  to 
enter  upon,-  by  its  agents  or  employe's,  the  rights  of  way  of  the  respective 
parties  hereto  to  take  up  and  remove  any  part  of  said  work,  in  case  same 
shall  fail  to  comply  with  the  orders  and  directions  of  the  board  with  refer- 
ence thereto,   either  as   herein   prescribed   or   as   prescribed   in   the   future. 
All  expense  of  so  doing  shall  be  borne  by  said  St.  Louis  &  Springfield  Rail- 
way Company. 

6.  That  the  terms,  provisions  and  conditions  of  this   order  shall  apply 
and  be  binding  upon  the  respective  successors,  lessees  and  assigns  of  the 
parties  hereto. 

7.  It  is  further  ordered  that  said  St.  Louis  &  Springfield  Railway  Com- 
pany forthwith  pay  the  costs  of  this  proceeding,  which  said  costs  shall  be 
paid  prior  to  said  company  entering  upon  the  right  of  way  of  the  Chicago 
&  Alton  Railway  Company  for  the  purpose  of  constructing  said  subway. 

8.  That  said  subway  or  under-crossing  shall  be  completed  on  or  before 
July  1,  1905,  unless  the  chairman  of  this  board  shall  for  good  cause  extend 
the  time  of  completion,  or  same  shall  be  delayed  by  strikes,  accidents  or 
other  causes  interefering  with  the  progress  of  the  work. 

[Signed]     J.   S.  NEVILLE. 
A.  L.  FRENCH, 
I.  L.  ELLWOOD 
Approved  this  6th  day  of  October,  1904. 


ST.  Louis,  Mo.,  Oct.  8,  1903. 

GENTLEMEN — I  herewith  attach  notice  this  day  served  on  the  members  of 
the  Merchants'  Exchange  Weighing  Committee,  and  you  are  hereby  notified 
that  inasmuch  as  the  law  of  our  State  provides  that  our  weighmasters  and 
assistants  shall  supervise  and  have  exclusive  control  of  the  weighing  of  all 
grain,  subject  to  inspection  within  the  limits  of  the  citw  of  East  St.  Louis, 
111.,  and  St.  Claif  county,  and  that  their  certificate  shall  be  conclusive 
between  all  parties  interested;  that  we  will  not  submit  to  the  Merchants' 
Exchange'  having  weighmasters  to  weigh  or  supervise  the  weighing  of  grain 
inspected  or  to  issue  certificates  on  same,  and  you  are  hereby  notified  not  to 
permit  said  weighmasters  to  in  any  way  interfere  with  our  weighmasters 
Of  to  assume  to  act  as  weighmasters  of  grain  subject  to  inspection  at  your 
elevator.  Very  respectfully, 

WILLIAM  KILPATRICK, 

Secretary. 


55 

ST.  Louis,  Mo.,  Oct.  9,  1903. 
Weighing  Committee  of  Merchants'  Exchange,  St.  Louis,  Mo.: 

GENTLEMEN — Referring  to  your  conversation  with  our  board  this  evening 
with  reference  to  your  weighmasters  supervising  the  weights  of  grain  in- 
spected by  our  inspectors  in  East  ;St.  Louis,  111.,  and  St.  Clair  county,  and 
the  issuing  of  weight  certificates,  our  board,  after  a  conference,  decided  that 
inasmuch  as  the  statutes  provide  that  our  weighmasters  shall  supervise  and 
have  exclusive  control  of  the  weighing  of  grain  inspected,  that  you  must 
immediately  withdraw  your  weighmasters  from  all  warehouses  where  grain 
is  inspected  within  the  limits  of  East  St.  Louis  and  St.  Clair  county,  and 
you  must  cease  issuing  weight  certificates,  and  you  are  hereby  notified  of 
said  decision,  and  to  abide  by  the  same.  Yours  respectfully, 

J.  S.  NEVILLE, 
Chairman. 


BEFORE  THE  HONORABLE,  THE  BOARD  OF  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE   COMMIS- 
SIONERS OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 


Chicago  &  Northwesterji  Railway  Co.,  Petitioners. 

vs. 
Wisconsin  Central  Railway  Co.,  Respondent. 


In  the  matter  of  the  petition  of  the  Chicago  &  Northwestern  Railway 
Company  with  respect  to  the  protection  by  interlocking  of  the  crossing  of  its 
tracks  by  the  track  of  the  Wisconsin  Central  Railway  Company  at  Des- 
plaines,  111.: 

And  now,  having  heard  the  evidence  which  has  been  introduced  by  the 
said  petitioner  and  said  respondent,  and  the  arguments  of  counsel,  and 
having  considered  the  same,  the  commission  finds  that  the  public  good 
requires  that  the  said  crossing  be  protected  by  interlocking  and  that  the  inter- 
locking plant  at  said  crossing,  which  was  constructed  in  the  year  A.  D.  1893, 
and  has  been  in  operation  from  that  time  until  the  destruction  of  the  inter- 
locking tower  at  said  crossing  in  March,  A.  D.  1904,  should  be  re-established 
and  rebuilt  and  hereafter  operated  by  the  said  petitioner  and  said 
respondent. 

It  is  thereupon  ordered  that  said  Chicago  &  Northwestern  Railway  Com- 
pany and  said  Wisconsin  Central  Railway  Company  shall  at  once  proceed 
to  rebuild  said  interlocking  tower  so  destroyed  by  fire  in  March,  A.  D.  1904, 
and  replace  the  interlocking  devices  at  said  crossing  in  manner  and  form 
as  shown  upon  the  plan  which  is  attached  to  said  petition  of  said  Chicago  & 
Northwestern  Railway  Company  marked  Exhibit  "C,"  and  that  the  said 
plan  for  the  reconstruction  of  said  interlocking  plant  at  said  crossing  be 
and  the  same  is  hereby  approved;  and  that  the  said  petitioner  and  said 
respondent  shall  cause  the  said  interlocking  plant  to  be  so  reconstructed  in 
accordance  with  said  plan  within  sixty  days  from  and  after  the  date  of  this 
order. 

It  is  further  ordered  that  the  said  petitioner  and  said  respondent  shall 
each  pay  one-half  of  the  cost  of  the  reconstruction  of  said  interlocking  plant, 
as  hereinabove  ordered  and  prescribed  and  that  the  cost  and  expense  of 
maintaining  and  operating  the  said  interlocking  plant,  when  the  same  shall 
be  reconstructed  and  put  in  operation  shall  be  divided  between  said  petitioner 
and  said  respondent  in  the  manner  and  form  in  which  the  cost  of  main- 
tenance and  operation  of  said  plant  was  divided  between  said  two  com- 
panies prior  to  the  destruction  of  said  interlocking  tower,  namely,  that  the 
said  Chicago  &  Northwestern  Railway  Company  shall  pay  seven  (7)  per  cent 
of  the  cost  of  maintenance  and  operation  of  said  plant  and  the  said  Wis- 
consin Central  Railway  Company  shall  pay  ninety-three  (93)  per  cent 
thereof.  [Signed]  J.  S.  NEVILLE, 

Springfield,  111.,  July  22,  1904.  Chairman. 


BEFORE   THE    BOARD   OF   RAILROAD    AND    WAREHOUSE   COMMISSIONERS    OF    THE 

STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 


Southern  Railway  Company 

vs. 
Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Company. 

E.  C.  KRAMER,  for  Petitioner. 
J.  M.  HAMILL,  for  Respondent. 


Petition  for  protection  of  crossing  near  Belleville,  St.  Clair  county,  Illinois. 

Finding  and  decision  of  the  commission  by  James  S.  Neville,  chairman. 

On  June  20,  1904,  the  iSouthern  Railway  Company,  by  Judge  E.  C.  Kramer, 
its  attorney,  filed  a  petition  with  the  commission,  to  which  is  attached  a 
copy  of  a  certain  contract  or  agreement  entered  into  between  the  Southern 
Railway  Company  and  the  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Company,  of 
date  the  26th  day  of  October,  1902,  in  which  the  above  named  companies 
covenant  and  agree  to  a  certain  style  of  interlocking  plant  for  the  protec- 
tion of  the  crossing  of  railroads  of  said  companies  at  a  point  near  the  Cres- 
cent Nail  Mill  a.t  North  Belleville,  Illinois,  and  the  location  and  mode  of 
operation  thereof,  as  more  fully  described  in  a  blue  print  attached  and  made 
a  part  of  this  petition. 

The  contract  also  prescribes  the  manner  of  operation  and  assigns  the 
amount  to  be  paid  by  each  of  said  companies  for  the  installation  of  said 
interlocking  plant  and  designates  which  company  shall  bear  the  cost  of 
maintenance. 

The  petition  of  the  Southern  Railway  Company  further  prays  that  the 
commission  approve  the  contract  and  enter  an  order  for  the  installation  of 
the  interlocking  plant  and  its  operation  as  described  in  the  petition  and 
contract. 

On  July  6,  1904,  the  commission  viewed  the  crossing,  at  which  time  both 
companies  interested  were  represented  and  suggestions  were  made  as  to 
changes  in  the  arrangement  of  tracks,  the  engineer  of  the  Southern  Railway 
Company  to  submit  the  blue  print  showing  conditions  as  they  would  appear 
under  the  new  arrangement. 

On  July  22,  1904,  new  plans  were  submitted  and  with  some  amendments 
were  approved. 

ORDEB. 

It  is  ordered  by  the  Board  of  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commissioners  of 
the  State  of  Illinois  that  the  prayer  of  the  petitioner,  the  Southern  Railway 
Company,  be  granted  and  that  the  contract  entered  into  by  and  between  the 
Southern  Railway  Company  and  the  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Com- 
pany, for  the  protection  of  the  crossing  of  said  companies'  tracks,  near  the 
Crescent  Nail  Mill  at  North  Belleville,  111.,  be  approved,  subject,  however, 
to  the  changes  in  track  arrangement  suggested  by  the  commission  and 
amendments  to  track  connections,  as  shown  on  blue  print  submitted  by  the 
Southern  Railway  Company  and  approved  by  the  consulting  engineer  of 
the  commission,  dated  July  22,  1904. 

It  is  further  ordered  by  the  commission  that  the  approval  for  a  partial 
interlocker,  as  provided  in  the  contract  between  the  Southern  Railway  and' 
the  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Company  herein  referred  to,  be  issued 
for  a  limited  period,  the  commission  reserving  to  itself  complete  jurisdiction 
over  the  conditions  of  the  protection  of  the  crossing  named  herein,  with 
the  right  to  change  said  conditions  by  further  order,  when  in  the  opinion  of 
the  commission  the  necessities  of  the  case  may  demand. 
.  Dated  at  Springfield,  Illinois,  this  16th  day  of  September,  1904. 

.    -  [Signed]         J.  ,S.  NEVILLE, 

Chairman. 


57 

OPINION  BY  H.  J.  HAMLIN,  ATTORNEY  GENERAL  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 


Hon.   James    S.   Neville,    Chairman   Railroad    and   Warehouse    Commission, 

Springfield,  III.: 

MY  DEAR  SIR — Your  board  has  submitted  to  me  for  investigation  and  an 
opinion  as  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission 
in  the  matter  of  crossings. 

I  have  examined  the  questions  submitted  in  the  following  order: 

(1)  Crossings  in  cities  and  villages — 

(a)     Of  steam  roads  with  steam  roads. 
(6)     Of  steam  roads  with  street  railways, 
(c)     Of  two  street  railways. 

(2)  Crossings  outside  of  cities  and  villages  having  the  same  three  divi- 
sions as  above. 

The  question  may  be  further  complicated  by  the  fact  that  the  crossing  may 
or  may  not  be  in  the  street  or  highway,  hence  it  will  also  be  required  to 
consider  the  efiect  of  a  crossing  upon  private  ground  and  of  a  crossing  in 
streets  and  highways. 

It  is  necessary  to  consider  the  Act  of  1887  relating  to  interlocking  switches, 
the  Act  of  1889  and  the  Crossing  Acts  of  1889  and  of  1891,  as  well  as  the 
conditions  surrounding  the  passage  of  these  Acts.  This  we  have  a  right  to 
do,  because  in  the  City  of  Chicago  vs.  Evans,  24th  111.,  52  (55),  the  court, 
in  construing  a  railroad  statute,  says  that  the  members  of  the  Legislature 
acted  knowing  that  the  various  kinds  of  railroads  were  in  existence,  must 
be  presumed  to  have  acted  accordingly.  It  is  a  familiar  principle  that  the 
surroundings  under  which  an  Act  was  passed,  and  the  evil  sought  to  be 
remedied,  are  to  be  considered  in  construing  the  Act  itself. 

ACT  OF  1887. 

This  Act  was  passed  June  3,  1887,  and  is  much  narrower  in  its  scope  than 
the  Acts  following.  Its  title  is  narrow — "in  regard  to  dangers  incident  to 
railroad  crossings  on  the  same  level."  That  the  title  of  the  Act  is  pertinent 
as  applying  to  its  true  intent  is  shown  in  the  County  of  Perry  vs.  County  of 
Jefferson,  94  111.,  214  (syl.  4),  and  Cruse  vs.  Aden,  127  111.,  231  (syl.  7). 

The  circumstances  surrounding  its  passage  were  these:  The  Act  relating 
to  the  fencing  and  operating  of  railroads  (Sec.  12  of  the  Act  of  March  31, 
1874,  as  amended)  and  which  expressly  in  section  38  excepts  street  railroads, 
provided  that  all  trains  running  on  any  railroads  in  this  State,  when 
approaching  a  crossing  with  another  railroad  upon  the  same  Jevel,  should 
be  brought  to  a  full  stop  within  a  set  distance  therefrom.  With  the  increase 
in  travel  and  the  consequent  demand  for  fast  freight  and  passenger  service, 
necessitating  as  few  stops  as  possible,  and  the  concurrent  increase  in  popu- 
lation and  railroad  mileage  increased  the  number  of  crossings,  thereby 
actually  lessening  the  ability  to  make  speed.  All  this  was  rendered  doubly 
irksome  because  new  inventions  and  improved  safety  devices  for  grade  cross- 
ings gave  the  companies  a  remedy  for  the  conditions.  Under  such  a  condition 
the  Act  of  1887  was  passed. 

It  terms  are  closely  akin  to  the  words  in  section  12  of  the  Act  of  1874.  It 
begins  by  referring  to  railroads  crossing  at  a  common  grade,  and  follows 
with  the  words,  "crossing  any  stream  or  harbor  by  swing  or  draw  bridge," 
the  very  words  of  the  Act  of  1874.  The  Act  of  1887  also  is  purely  permis- 
sive and  in  substance  grants  the  right  to  the  roads  crossing,  or  to  one  of 
them,  to  erect  interlocking  switches,  rendering  it  safe  for  engines  and  trains 
to  pass  such  crossing  without  stopping;  which,  having  been  done  and 
approved  by  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission,  the  penaltits  of  sec- 
tion 12,  supra,  were  suspended.  It  was  purely  a  permissive  statute  and  no 
one  could  be  forced  to  put  in  an  interlocking  switch,  and  in  case  the  roads 
could  not  agree  to  do  so,  that  ended  the  matter,  unless  one  of  them  put  the 
whole  plant  in  at  its  own  expense. 


58 

This  Act  did  not  alter  the  fact  that  one  road  could  still,  in  new  con- 
struction, condemn  its  right  of  way  across  any  railroad,  selecting  its  own 
spot  for  the  crossing,  and  did  not  in  the  least  affect  opposed  new  crossings. 

By  its  limited  terms  and  its  narrow  title,  its  permissive  character,  and 
its  practically  quoting  the  words  of  section  12,  it  seems  this  Act  of  1887 
only  applied  to  so-called  steam  railroads,  or  roads  governed  by  the  Act 
of  1874. 

ACT  OF  1889. 

In  the  meanwhile  electric  railroads,  street  railroads,  elevated  railroads  and 
the  like  spread  all  over  the  State,  and  grade  crossings  were  to  be  found  on 
all  sides.  There  was  a  consequent  increase  in  the  delay  from  frequent  stops; 
this  was  not  the  only  result.  Accidents  increased  and  the  loss  of  life  from 
such  accidents  and  the  loss  of  property  ran  up  rapidly.  Law  suits  and 
judgments  for  damages  piled  up  on  the  railroads  and  vexatious  litigation 
arose  out  of  the  attempts  to  cross  established  roads  at  inconvenient  places. 
The  repeated  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court,  following  the  rule  laid  down 
in  L.  S.  &  M.  iff.  Ry.  Co.  vs.  Chicago  &  W.  I.  R.  R.  Co.,  97  111.,  506  (syl.  5), 
gave  the  new  road  every  advantage.  See  Malott  vs.  Collinsville  8.  &  E.  St. 
L.  Elec.  Ry.  Co.,  108  Fed.,  313,  where  the  circumstances  leading  up  to  the 
Act  of  1889  are  discussed. 

These  conditions  led  to  the  passage  of  the  Act  of  May  27,  1889.  This  Act 
of  1889  is  an  independent  Act.  It  contains  no  reference  to  section  12  of  the 
Act  of  1874  in  any  way  nor  to  any  other  law  before  then  passed.  By  its 
terms  it  relates  only  to  the  future.  Its  title  is  exceedingly  broad.  It  is: 
"An  Act  in  relation  to  the  crossing  of  one  railroad  by  another,  and  to  pre- 
vent danger  of  life  and  property  from  grade  crossings."  The  first  section 
provides  that  "hereafter  any  railroad  company  desiring  to  cross  with  its 
tracks  the  main  line  of  another  railroad  company,  shall  construct  the  cross- 
ing at  such  a  place  and  in  such  manner  as  will  not  unnecessarily  impede  or 
endanger  the  travel  or  transportation  upon  the  railway  so  crossed."  It  will 
be  noticed  that  this  Act  here  uses  the  word  "railway."  The  first  sentence 
directly  changed  the  Eminent  Domain  Act  as  the  Supreme  Court  had  so  often 
interpreted  it  and  put  a  stop  to  the  power  of  the  new  company  to  cross 
where  and  how  it  pleased.  Having  taken  away  the  former  method  of  settling 
the  question,  the  Act  provides  a  new  way,  viz.,  an  appeal  to  the  Railroad 
and  Warehouse  Commission.  The  commission  were  to  decide  the  question, 
"with  due  regard  to  the  safety  of  life  and  property;"  and  the  former  rule 
of  requiring  the  new  company  to  pay  all  the  expenses  was  retained. 

Here  there  is  no  limit,  in  the  title,  or  the  Act  itself,  nor  in  the  object 
sought,  to  exclude  from  this  Act  any  railroad  crossing  of  any  kind.  Its  words 
are  utterly  different  from  the  words  used  in  section  12  of  the  Act  of  1874. 
No  reference  is  made  to  any  stops  or  remission  of  penalties.  The  intent 
seems  to  be  entirely  to  protect  life  and  property,  and  to  do  so  it  specifically, 
in  plain  words,  changes  the  rule  of  law  announced  in  the  L.  8.  d  M.  8.  R.  R. 
Co.  vs.  Chicago  £  W.  I.  R.  R.  Co.,  97  111.,  506  (syl.  5),  supra,  and  places  the 
Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  in  charge,  with  directions  to  regard 
the  safety  of  life  and  property.  The  words,  "engine,"  "train,"  et  cetera,  are 
not  found  in  it. 

From  this  language  it  would  seem  that  this  Act  includes  all  railroads  of 
every  kind.  The  language,  "any  railroad  company,"  is  closely  akin  to  the 
language  used  in  the  Act  of  Feb.  12,  1855,  relating  to  operative  contracts, 
et  cetera.  This  Act  is  now  in  the  Railroad  Act,  Chap.  114,  Kurd's  Stat.,  Sec. 
44,  and  Sec.  58  in  Starr  &  Curtiss.  It  gives  "all  railroad  companies  incor- 
porated or  organized  under,  or  which  may  be  incorporated  or  organized  under, 
the  authority  of  the  laws  of  this  -State,"  the  power  to  do  certain  things.  The 
language  in  Chicago  vs.  Evans,  24  111.,  52  (55),  is  discussed  by  our  Supreme 
Court  in  these  terms: 

"This  language  is  manifestly  sufficiently  comprehensive  to  embrace  horse 
railways  as  well  as  railroads  whose  cars  are  propelled  by  steam  or  other 
power,  as  well  roads  authorized  to  transport  passengers  only,  as  roads 


59 

authorized  to  transport  passengers  and  freight  by  other  power.  The  lan- 
guage of  the  enactment  embraces  all  railroads  organized,  as  well  as  those 
which  might  afterwards  become  so,  and  the  Act  makes  no  distinction  or 
reservation  as  to  the  character  of  the  railroad.  The  members  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  were  fully  aware  that  these  various  roads  existed,  and  if  any 
roads  answering  either  description  were  not  designed  to  be  embraced,  they 
would,  it  appears  to  us,  have  limited  the  operation  of  the  Act  so  as  to  have 
excluded  them.  Horse  city  railways  unquestionably  fall  within  the  descrip- 
tion of  the  class  of  subjects  of  which  they  were  legislating.  They  are,  in 
every  sense  of  the  term,  railroads;  they  are  incorporated  under  the  laws  of 
the  State,  and  are  embraced  within  the  language  of  the  statute,  and  we  have 
no  doubt  within  its  spirit." 

Another  feature  which  indicates  that  the  Legislature  meant  to  include 
street  railroads  in  the  use  of  the  word  "railways,"  as  above  pointed  out. 
There  are  some  cases  which  I  will  refer  to  later  on,  which  suggest  that  rail- 
ways and  railroads  are  different,  and  that  the  former  means  street  railroads 
alone.  By  the  use,  however,  of  both  words  in  the  Act  of  1889,  the  Legislature 
seems  to  have  clearly  embraced  all  classes  of  roads  for  future  crossings, 
where  a  main  line  was  crossed.  , 

Another  feature  is  the  fact  that  the  Legislature,  when  it  desired  to  except 
street  railroads  from  any  Act,  has  heretofore  done  so  expressly.  The  Act  of 
March  31,  1874,  above  referred  to  concerning  the  fencing  and  operating  of 
railroads,  by  its  title  and  its  various  sections  related  to  "every  railroad  com- 
pany," et  cetera.  This  would  seem  to  have  included  street  railroads  and  that 
the  Legislature  knew  that  such  would  be  the  case  without  express  exception 
shown  by  section  38,  which  expressly  excepts  street  railways.  Again,  the 
General  Incorporation  Act  excepts  corporations  for  the  operation  of  railroads, 
to  which  exception  the  Legislature  provided  that  horse  and  dummy  railroads 
might  be  organized  thereunder.  It  is  true  that  the  enactments  of  subsequent 
Legislatures,  composed  of  different  members,  have  no  more  value  in  the 
construction  of  a  statute  than  has  the  Act  of  any  other  department  of  the 
State.  (Rockhold  vs.  Canton  Masonic  Ben.  Soc.,  129  111.,  440;  syl.  14.)  But 
this  same  argument  would  prevent  section  12  of  the  Act  of  1874  from  influ- 
encing the  meaning  of  the  Act  of  1889,  a  position  which  is  urged  with  much 
persistence  by  the  counsel  of  the  Union  Traction  Company,  in  a  brief  sub- 
mitted to  me  on  this  question. 

It  is  also  argued  that  the  words,  "in  all  cases,"  that  the  new  company  shall 
pay  the  expense  of  the  crossing,  indicates  that  the  Act  of  1889  applies  only 
to  so-called  commercial  roads.  The  cause  of  the  C.,  B.  &  Q.  R.  R.  Co.  vs. 
West  Chicago  Street  Ry.  Co.,  156  111.,  255,  holds  that  a  steam  railroad  com- 
pany is  not  entitled  to  damages  for  the  crossing  of  its  lines  by  a  street 
railroad.  The  fact  that  the  Act  of  1889  changes,  in  effect,  the  eminent 
domain  law,  is  also  urged  as  an  argument  for  its  limitation  to  steam  roads; 
for,  as  it  will  be  seen  further  on,  street  railroads  have  very  limited  rowers 
of  eminent  domain.  It  is  also  said  that  the  use  of  the  words  "main  line" 
indicates  steam  roads.  These  arguments  are  unsound.  The  Act  says  that 
compensation  shall  be  paid,  in  all  cases  *  *  *  to  be  determined  in  the 
manner  provided  by  law.  This  refers  to  eminent  domain;  or,  if  the  law 
provides  for  no  compensation,  why  may  it  not  mean  nothing  is  to  be  paid? 
The  use  of  the  words  "main  line"  are  discussed  under  the  Act  of  1891,  where 
numerous  such  words  are  used. 

The  intent  of  the  Legislature  in  1889  was  evidently  to  make  future  grade 
crossings  safe  for  life  and  property,  and  by  the  careful  omission  of  any 
reference  to  the  Act  of  1874,  by  the  use  of  words  "railroads"  and  "rail- 
ways" and  by  the  direction  that  the  commission  shall  decide  with  "due 
regards  to  safety  of  life  and  property;"  and  from  the  fact  that  there  were 
street  railroads  everywhere  at  that  time,  a  common  thing,  well  .known  to 
the  members  of  that  Legislature,  and  by  the  further  fact  that  accidents 
were  numerous  at  the  crossings  of  all  railroads,  the  conclusion  is  forced  upon 
us  that  the  words  of  the  Act  of  1889  include  all  classes  of  railroads  so  far 
as  future  crossings  are  concerned.  It  is  certain  that  it  governs  the  crossings 
of  all  roads  organized  under  chapter  114,  whether  the  crossing  takes  place 


6o 

within  or  without  cities,  villages  and  towns.  This  was  expressly  decided  in 
the  case  of  Malott  vs.  Collinsville  C.  &  E.  St.  Louis  Elec.  R.  Co..  108  Fed., 
313,  above  quoted,  where  the  electric  railroad  sought  to  cross  the  steam  road 
within  the  corporate  limits  of  Caseyville,  Illinois,  but  not  upon  a  street 
actually  opened,  but  one  which  was  about  to  be  opened  and  which  had  been 
already  authorized  by  village  ordinance.  The  electric  road  was  organized 
under  chapter  114.  In  that  case  the  court  (Grosscup,  J.)  say: 

"We  think  it  clear  that  in  respect  to  the  place  and  manner  of  crossing,  *nd 
an  independent  tribunal  to  determine  such  place  and  manner,  the  Act  (of 
1889)  was  intended  to  modify  the  former  Acts  (of  eminent  domain  over 
crossings).  In  no  State  is  the  mileage  of  railways  so  great  as  that  of  Illi- 
nois. In  no  State  has  the  extension  of  railways  been  so  rapid.  Nearly  every 
township  is  now  intersected,  north  and  south  and  east  and  west,  by  these 
great  railways.  With  the  increase  of  mileage  has  come,  also,  multiplying 
of  trains  on  roads  already'  laid  and  growing  need  for  greater  speed.  There 
has  been  no  time  when  the  danger  from  these  sources  was  not  rapidly  in- 
creasing. The  purpose  behind  the  Act  of  1889  is,  we  think,  clearly  disclosed 
in  this  rapid  evolution  of  the  railway  situation. 

"The  Act  of  1889  doubtless  looked  towards  an  escape  as  far  as  possible  from 
(future)  grade  crossings.  ******* 

"Our  conclusion  as  to  the  purpose  of  the  Act  is  reinforced  by  the  fact  that 
it  followed  shortly  after  the  decision  of  Lake  Shore  &  M.  8.  Ry.  Co.  vs. 
Chicago  &  W.  I.  R.  Co.  (supra) ;  and  by  the  fact  that  it  was  followed  oy 
another  Act  (the  Act  of  1891). 

"The  fact  that  its  trains  are  to  be  operated  by  electricity  instead  of  steam 
does  not  effect  its  place  in  the  laws  of  the  State  as  a  railway  company. 
*******  indeed,  these  electric  railroads,  in  the  speed  of  their 
trains,  in  the  distance  traveled  and  in  their  capacities  for  transportation,  are 
well  within  the  field  of  public  utilities  hitherto  supplied  by  steam  railroads 
alone.  We  cannot  conceive  that  the  Act  (of  1889)  was  not  meant  to  cover 
every  form  of  railroad  that,  in  the  march  of  events,  answers  the  purposes 
of  general  transportation.  Nor  does  their  incidental  function  as  street  rail- 
ways in  the  towns  and  cities  traversed  lift  them  out  of  the  railroad 
statutes.  *******" 

Prom  this  reasoning  it  follows  that  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Com- 
mission, by  the  Act  of  1889,  was  erected  into  an  "independent  tribunal"  hav- 
ing powers  new  in  the  law  and  drawing  to  itself  the  powers  of  the  new 
company  to  locate  the  new  crossing,  and  limiting  the  power  of  the  court  to 
consider  an  eminent  domain  petition  before  action  was  had  by  the  Railroad 
and  Warehouse  Commission.  It  is  apparent  from  the  above  authorities  that 
the  Act  of  1889  gave  the  commission  power  over  the  crossing  of  two  steam 
roads,  whether  within  or  without  cities;  or  rather  the  crossing  of  two  roads 
organized  under  chanter  114.  The  only  question  now  in  doubt  under  this 
Act  of  1889  is  its  effect  upon  the  crossing  of  a  company  organized  under 
chapter  82,  with  one  organized  under  chapter  114,  and  the  crossing  of  two 
companies  both  organized  under  chapter  32.  These,  the  language  of  the 
statute  and  the  reasoning  above  would  say  were  also  included;  but  at  this 
stage  that  question  is  held  until  other  matters  are  taken  up  below.  At  this 
point  it  is  best  to  consider  the  next  Act  and  make  one  discussion  cover  the 
general  street  railway  question. 

ACT  OF  1891. 

Following  the  Act  of  1889  then  came  the  Act  of  June  2,  1891.  This  is  a 
wonderfully  comprehensive  statute.  The  title  is:  "To  protect  property  and 
persons  from  damger  at  the  crossings  and  junctions  of  railroads,  by  pro- 
viding a  method  to  compel  the  protection  of  the  same."  The  last  section 
of  the  Act  (section  7)  defines  a  crossing  to  include  "every  junction  of  two 
or  more  railroads'  tracks,  whether  the  tracks  joining  each  other  shall  be 
owned  by  different  companies  or  by  the  same  company,"  with  the  proviso 
that  the  definition  shall  not  apply  to  "switch,  spur  or  side  tracks." 


6i 

This  Act,  on  its  face,  purports  to  govern  crossings  already  in,  as  well  as 
crossings  made  in  the  future.  As  to  crossings  in  the  future,  it  extends  the 
power  of  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  so  even  that  if  the  com- 
panies concerned  in  the  crossing  should  agree  upon  the  terms  of  the  cross- 
ing and  there  be,  in  fact,  no  dispute  between  them,  yet  in  case  the  commis- 
sion should  deem  the  crossing  to  be  dangerous  to  the  public,  the  commission 
could  force  the  placing  of  proper  safety  devices.  In  all  other  respects,  it 
confirms  the  Act  of  1889  and  in  no  way  lessens  its  effects. 

Considering  the  Act  of  1891  itself,  the  first  section  says  that  "in  every  case" 
where  the  main  tracks  of  railroads  cross  at  a  grade  "any  company"  owning 
or  operating  either  of  them  may  force  the  installation  of  safety  devices. 
Section  2  provides  that  if  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission,  "from 
information  obtained  in  any  manner,  have  cause  to  believe  that  any  such 
grade  crossing  is  dangerous  to  the  public,"  or  "to  persons  operating  trains," 
then  it  may  of  its  own  motion  force  the  installation  of  safety  devices.  Sec- 
tion 3  orders  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission,  after  an  investigation 
of  any  crossing,  to  act  as  "the  public  good  requires." 

In  certain  parts  of  the  Act  the  words  "trains,"  "persons  operating  trains" 
are  used;  and  in  section  4  a  reference  is  made  to  the  Stopping  Act  of  1874. 
It  is  contended  that  these  words  limit  the  Act  to  so-called  steam  roads  alone, 
a  contention  which  will  be  considered  hereafter.  Let  us  first  consider  the 
conditions  surrounding  the  passage  of  the  Act  of  1891. 

This  Act  is,  on  its  face,  solely  for  the  protection  of  the  public.  The  inten- 
tion of  the  Legislature  seeems  to  have  enlarged  with  each  Act  relating  to 
railroad  crossings.  The  Act  of  1887  was  a  purely  permissive  one  and 
one  merely  a  matter  of  accommodation  to  the  companies.  The  Act  of  188& 
changed  the  law  applicable  to  new  crossings  and  established  the  Railroad 
and  Warehouse  Commission  into  a  new  and  independent  tribunal  to  govern 
disputed  future  crossings,  leaving  the  companies,  if  they  could  agree,  the 
right  to  regulate  the  crossing  in  any  manner  as  suited  themselves  and 
leaving  the  crossings  already  in,  however  dangerous  they  might  be,  to  remain 
as  they  were.  This  Act  of  1891  enlarges  the  powers  of  the  commission  so 
that  any  dispute  over  a  crossing,  established  as  well  as  future,  may  find  its 
solution  before  the  commission.  Not  only  so,  but  it  gives  the  commision 
the  power  of  itself  initiating  the  inquiry  as  to  the  safety  of  the  crossing. 
It  is  manifest  that  the  Act  enlarged  the  powers  of  the  commission,  acting  as 
the  independent  tribunal  established  by  the  Act  of  1889.  This  power  of  the 
commission  extended  to  all  crossings  embraced  in  the  Act,  and  ihe  Act  goes 
to  the  length  of  defining  crossings.  This  definition  has  been  quoted  above. 

The  first  noticeable  thing  in  the  definition  is  the  fact  that  a  crossing  of 
two  tracks  of  the  same  company  may  be  required  to  be  protected  with 
safety  devices  and  at  the  expense  of  the  company.  This,  it  cannot  be  con- 
tended, is  a  reference  to  compensation  under  the  Eminent  Domain  Act,  as 
the  words  "in  all  cases"  are  contended  to  be  in  the  Act  of  1887.  It  is  purely 
a  provision  for  the  protection  of  life  and  porperty.  Then,  too,  the  definition 
excepts  certain  things.  Now,  the  presumption  would  be  that  when  the  Leg- 
islature makes  certain  exceptions,  that  it  excepts  all  that  is  to  be  excepted 
and  that  if  it  had  meant  to  except  any  other  matter  included  in  the  general 
words  used,  it  would  have  done  so.  Having  gone  to  the  trouble  to  specify 
certain  excepted  things,  the  presumption  is  that  if  other  words  were  to  be 
excepted,  it  would  have  gone  to  the  trouble  to  enumerate  them.  The  excep- 
tions are  "switches,  spurs  and  side  tracks."  This  language  is  as  applicable 
to  street  railroads  as  to  steam  railroads,  for  the  statute  governing  horse  and 
dummy  railroads  then  in  force,  though  since  repealed,  in  sections  1  and  2 
recognizes  that  such  roads  have  switches,  spurs  and  side  tracks.  Further- 
more, in  passing  the  Act  of  1891.  the  Legislature  had  the  common  knowledge 
open  to  us  all  that  there  were  in  existence  street  railroads  organized  under 
chapter  32  and  that  they  were  so-called  railroads.  The  intent  of  the  Act  of 
1891  was  to  protect  life  and  property  on  all  grade  crossings.  The  intent  was 
that  in  two  classes  of  cases:  First,  where  the  companies  crossing  now,  or 
in  the  past,  should  at  any  time  disagree  over  the  conditions  of  the  crossing, 
that  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  should  be  a  tribunal  of  suffl- 


62 

cient  power  to  hear  and  decide  the  dispute;  and  second,  that  where  any 
grade  crossing  was  dangerous  to  the  public,  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse 
Commission  could  make  and  keep  it  safe.  This  second  intention  is  so  plainly 
expressed  that  the  term  includes  street  railroad  crossings.  The  language  is 
so  broad  that  the  Act  would,  unless  affimatively  shown  otherwise,  include 
every  kind  of  railroad  crossing. 

It  is  contended,  however,  that  the  words  "train,"  "persons  operating  trains," 
and  the  reference  to  the  Stoppage  Act,  all  limit  the  Act  to  apply  only  to 
so-called  commercial  railroads. 

The  rule  governing  the  construction  of  the  statutes  is  thus  announced  in 
Burke  vs.  Monroe  Co.,  77  111.,  610  (in  discussing  the  word  "city"  as  to 
whether  it  also  included  incorporated  towns) : 

(614)  "In  Mason  vs.  Finch,  2  Scam.,  223,  it  is  said,  in  construing  statutes, 
courts  look  at  the  language  of  the  whole  act,  and  if  they  find  in  any  particu- 
las  clause,  an  expression  not  so  large  and  extensive  in  its  import  as  those 
used  in  other  parts  of  the  statute,  if,  upon  a  view  of  the  whole  act,  they  can 
collect,  from  the  more  large  and  extensive  expressions  used  in  other  parts, 
the  real  intention  of  the  Legislature,  it  is  their  duty  to  give  effect  to  the 
larger  expressions." 

This  case  announces  the  rule  also,  that  the  remedy  sought  to  be  applied  by 
the  legislature  in  that  act  in  order  to  carry  out  the  object  sought,  of  neces- 
sity included  incorporated  towns.  The  reasoning  of  the  whole  case  is  Quite 
applicable  to  the  Act  of  1891  concerning  crossings.  The  object  of  the  act  is 
to  protect  life  and  property  and  to  compel  the  protection  of  grade  crossings 
and  that  object,  when  a  street  railway  crossing  is  in  fact  dangerous,  can  only 
be  carried  out  by  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  having  power  over 
such  crossing. 

Again:  In  the  case  of  B.  &  I.  R.  R.  Co.  vs.  Gregory,  15  111.,  (25),  in  dis- 
cussing the  contention  that  certain  sections  of  a  private  act,  by  its  narrow 
terms,  limit  the  broader  terms  in  the  grant,  and  the  Court  say: 

"One  portion  of  a  law  may  undoubtedly  qualify,  restrain,  or  even  suspend 
another  portion;  but  in  order  to  have  that  effect,  it  must  appear  that  it  was 
framed  with  that  intention." 

Prom  these  citations  it  appears  impossible  to  regard  the  use  of  the  words 
above  as  limiting  the  intent  to  protect  life  and  property. 

The  case  of  Thompson  vs.  Bulson,  78  111.,  277,  (syl.  2),  has  been  referred  to 
in  support  of  the  contention  of  a  limitation  of  the  statute.  The  Court  says 
in  that  case: 

"A  section  of  a  statute  will  be  construed  with  reference  to  the  provisions 
of  other  sections  relating  to  the  same  subject  and  so  as  to  leave  all  the  words 
in  the  different  sections  in  full  effect  according  to  their  ordinary  and  usually 
accepted  meaning." 

This  case,  however,  is  not  one  where  the  larger  terms  of  the  act,  title 
Included,  was  sought  to  be  limited  by  the  casual  words  in  some  sections, 
hence  it  is  impossible  to  apply  the  Thompson  case  as  contrary  to  the  position 
above  taken. 

In  my  opinion,  the  effect  of  the  Acts  of  1889  and  1891,  is  that,  first,  it  estab- 
lishes the  Board  of  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commissioners  as  an  independ- 
ent tribunal  to  govern  railroad  crossings,  in  two  classes  of  cases: 

(a)     When  either  company  shall  apply  for  a  ruling  of  the  commission. 

(ft)     Whenever    the  safety  of  life  and  property  requires  action. 

This  power  is  limited  to  no  special  company  or  companies,  but  to  all  cross- 
ings, whether  in  or  without  cities  and  villages,  and  whether  the  companies 
are  incorporated  under  the  general  incorporation  act  or  under  the  railroad  act. 
Furthermore,  it  is  apparent  that  this  power  so  far  as  street  railroads  are  con- 
cerned, is  applicable  to  crossings  only  and  not  to  the  reports  required  from 
the  so-called  commercial  railroads,  under  the  act  creating  the  commission. 

So  far  I  have  considered  only  the  effect  of  the  acts  themselves.  I  will  now 
consider  some  of  the  objections  that  are  made  to  the  construction  above  given. 


63 

OBJECTION    THAT   CITY'S   POWER    IS   ABSOLUTE. 

The  first  contention  made  in  the  above  construction  is  that  the  city  has 
absolute  power  over  streets  and  that  to  permit  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse 
Commission  to  interfere  with  street  railroad  crossings,  or  with  a  crossing  of 
the  steam  road  by  a  street  railroad,  would  be  to  bring  about  a  conflict  of 
authority  between  the  commission  and  the  municipal  authorities  in  cities. 
It  will  hardly  be  contended  that  city  authorities  may  prevent  the  commission 
from  taking  jurisdiction  of  the  crossing  of  two  steam  railroads  within  the 
city  limits,  or  even  such  a  crossing  in  a  street.  In  the  case  of  Malott  vs.  Col- 
linsville  C.  d  E.  St.  L.  Elec.  Ry.  Co.,  108  Fed.,  313,  the  Act  of  1889  was  held 
to  apply  to  the  crossing  of  two  companies  incorporated  under  Chap.  114, 
where  the  crossing  took  place  within  the  corporate  limits  of  Caseyvllle, 
Illinois,  and  at  a  place  which  was  ordered  to  be.  but  had  not  yet  been  opened 
as  a  street.  The  same  argument  causing  a  conflict  over  the  crossing  of  street 
railroads  would  cause  a  conflict  over  the  crossing  of  steam  railroads  for  the 
statute,  (Sec.  25),  gives  the  city  power  to  "provide  for  and  change  the  loca- 
tion, grade  and  crossings  of  any  railroad,"  a  section  which  has  beeen  held  in 
Harvey  vs.  Aurora  &  Geneva  R.  R.  Co.,  186  111.,  283,  (292),  to  apply  to  steam 
roads  alone.  The  same  argument  which  would  deny  the  commission  power 
over  street  railroad  crossings  in  cities  would  construe  the  above  section  to  ex- 
clude its  power  over  any  crossings  in  cities.  Such  an  argument  would  nullify 
the  Acts  of  1887,  1889  and  1891,  and  would  deprive  the  commission  of  power 
to  protect  at  the  very  place  where  that  power  was  most  needed. 

It  is  said  that  the  city  might  consent  to  a  crossing  at  one  spot  only,  and 
that  the  commission  would  deny  the  right  because  the  place  was  dangerous; 
or  that  the  city  might  consent  to  and  insist  upon  a  grade  crossing  and  the 
commission  insist  upon  an  overhead  crossing.  But  the  same  argument  equal- 
ly applies  to  the  crossings  of  steam  roads,  and  if  the  Legislature  permitted 
such  a  possible  conflict  in  one  case,  why  not  in  the  other.  The  protection  of 
life  and  property  is  an  object  of  sufficient  importance  to  permit  the  risk  of  a 
possible  conflict  of  this  character,  a  remote  danger  compared  with  the  com- 
mon danger  at  grade  crossings.  Some  street  car  grade  crossings  in  the  city 
of  Chicago  yearly  claim  dozens  of  victims  and  the  crossings  of  a  steam  and 
street  railroad  are  still  more  dangerous.  The  danger  the  Legislature  sought 
to  avoid  is  so  much  more  real  than  this  hypothetical  danger  that  there  seems 
to  be  no  doubt  of  the  power  of  the  commission. 

OBJECTION  THAT  THE  ACT  CREATING   THE  COMMISSION   IS  LIMITED. 

It  is  also  argued  that  the  Act  of  April  13,  1871,  creating  the  Railroad  and 
Warehouse  Commission,  by  its  terms,  by  the  word  "Warehouse"  by  the  pro- 
visions requiring  detailed  reports  from  railroads,  all  indicate  that  the  com- 
mission had  nothing  to  do  with  street  railways.  It  is  argued  that  the  words 
of  the  act  are  broad,  the  terms  "any  railroad,"  "any  railroad  company"  and 
"every  railroad  company  now  or  hereafter  incorporated  or  doing  business  in 
the  State  under  any  general  or  special  law,"  the  reference  to  the  officers  of 
"every  railroad  company" — all  appear  and  being  as  broad  as  the  words  in  the 
Acts  of  1889  and  1891  indicate  that  the  latter  acts  should  be  strictly  construed. 
This  argument,  even  should  it  be  conceded  that  the  original  act  creating  the 
commission  is  limited  to  steam  roads,  does  not  carry  any  weight,  for  the  Act 
of  1889  expressly  enlarges  the  powers  of  the  commission  and  makes  it  an  in- 
dependent tribunal  to  control  crossings. 

It  is  true  that  the  original  act  creating  the  commission  has  not  been,  in 
practice  applied  to  street  railways;  and  that  there  are  two  obiter  dicta  in 
Illinois  which  indicate  that  the  act  does  not  apply  to  them.  The  first  one  is 
in  Wiggins  Ferry  Co.  vs.  E.  St.  L.  U.  Ry.  Co.,  107  111.,  455-6,  where  the  Court 
says: 

"To  say  the  least,  it  is  a  matter  of  grave  doubt  whether  the  consolidated 
Act  of  1874  entitled,  'Railroads'  has  any  application  to  street  railroads  or 
whether  street  railroads  can  lawfully  incorporate  at  will  under  that  act. 
This  special  provision  in  the  corporation  act  (excepting  horse  and  dummy 


64 

railroads)  would  seem  to  indicate  a  purpose  on  the  part  of  the  Legislature  to 
treat  horse  and  dummy  railroads,  at  least  in  some  respects,  as  a  distinct  °lass 
of  roads,  and  this  purpose  on  the  part  of  the  Legislature,  is  further  mani- 
fested in  certain  provisions  found  in  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Act.  That 
act,  as  consolidated  in  the  revision  of  1874,  consists  of  a  number  of  statutes 
passed  by  the  Legislature  at  different  times  but  each  having  in  view  the 
accomplishment  of  some  particular  object  or  objects.  While  the  terms  of  the 
first  section  of  the  act  seem  sufficiently  broad  to  embrace  horse  and  dummy 
railroads,  which  we  regard  as  falling  within  the  general  description  of 
street  railways,  yet,  in  other  subdivisions  of  the  act  this  class  of  roads  is 
expressly  excluded  from  its  operation.  Citing  section  77  and  section  95, 
chapter  114.  Kurd  1874." 

But  the  court  then  says  that  this  question  if?  not  decided,  for  the  reason 
that  the  company  before  the  court  was  organized  under  chapter  114,  and  the 
question  is  expressly  reserved. 

The  other  case  is  Dean  vs.  Chicago  Gen.  Ry.  Co.,  64  111.  App.,  167,  where 
Waterman  J.,  at  the  end  of  the  opinion,  and  wholly  outside  of  the  case  before 
him,  says: 

"We  do  not  regard  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Act  as  applying  to  the 
operation  of  street  railways  within  the  limits  of  one  city." 

On  the  other  hand,  the  case  of  Chicago  vs.  Evans,  24  111.,  55,  quoted  above, 
expressly  held  that  certain  portions  of  the  act,  existing  before  the  revision, 
did  apply  to  street  railroads.  Furthermore,  the  Legislature's  care  in  except- 
ing street  railroads  from  the  act  for  fencing  and  operating  railroads,  shows 
that  in  the  mind  of  that  body  the  act  would  apply  to  them,  if  not  specially 
excepted. 

Again  in  Malott  vs.  Collinsville  C.  d  E.  St.  L.  Elec.  Ry.  Co.,  108  Fed.  313, 
the  court  said,  and  was  quoted  above: 

"Nor  does  their  incidental  function  as  street  railways  in  the  towns  or 
cities  traversed,  lift  them  out  of  the  railroad  statutes." — reasoning  which  the 
Illinois  Supreme  Court  approve  in  Knopf  vs.  Lake  St.  Elec.  R.  R.  Co.,  197 
111.,  218. 

It  is  further  urged  that  the  original  act  creating  the  Railroad  and  Ware- 
house Commission,  even  though  not  by  its  terms,  limited  to  so-called  commer- 
cial roads,  yet  the  acts  of  the  commission  in  their  public  business  has  inter- 
preted it  as  though  such  was  its  true  meaning  and  that  the  construction  thus 
adopted  is  binding  by  usage.  Counsel  for  the  Union  Traction  company,  in 
this  behalf,  cites  Chicago  &  Northwestern  Ry.  Co.  vs.  Boone  county.  44  111., 
243,  and  Link  vs.  City  of  Litchfield,  141  111.,  477,  yet  the  act  of  1871  which 
created  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  was,  in  Central  Elevator  Co. 
vs.  The  People,  174  111.,  210,  exempted  from  this  rule.  In  that  case  the  court 
said: 

"Finally  it  is  claimed  that  there  nas  been  a  practical  construction  of  the 
law  by  the  Warehouse  Commissioners,  permitting  the  practice  complained  of. 
*  *  *  It  is  said,  however,  that  since  the  practice  became  common  the 
Warehouse  Commissioners  charged  with  the  administration  and  enforcement 
of  the  law  did  not  question  the  legality  of  the  practice.  There  was  nothing 
in  the  nature  of  affirmative  construction  and  the  most  that  can  be  said  is  that 
the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commissioners  failed  to  enforce  the  law.  That 
fact  does  not  amount  to  a  practical  construction.  If  the  commissioners  were 
derelict,  it  would  not  bind  the  public,  and  indifference  on  their  part  could 
not  have  that  effect." 

A  complete  examination  of  the  cases  discussing  construction  of  statutes 
from  the  acts  of  officials,  will  show  that  it  is  affirmative  action  by  the  officials 
and  not  the  absence  of  action,  that  the  courts  consider,  and  the  fact  that  the 
commission  may  have  failed  to  apply  the  crossing  acts  to  street  railways  does 
not  indicate  that  the  act  itself  does  not  cover  them.  Furthermore,  it  could 
be  conceded  that  the  original  act  creating  the  commission  did  not  mean  to 
include  street  railways,  and  still  the  acts  of  1889  and  1891,  by  their  express  ad- 
dition to  the  powers  of  the  commission,  would  give  ample  grounds  to  include 
street  railway  crossings  within  these  new  acts. 


65 

The  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission,  however,  has  been  for  some 
years  taking  jurisdiction  of  the  crossing  of  electric  roads  with  steam  roads 
in  the  county  districts.  In  May,  1896,  (Decisions  of  the  Commission,  pages 
337,  339  and  340)  the  commission  took  jurisdiction  of  the  crossings  of  the  C.  & 
A.  R.  R.  Co's.  tracks  by  the  Alton  Ry.  &  111.  Co.  In  October,  1890,  it  took  juris- 
diction of  the  crossing  of  the  C.  &  A.  tracks  by  the  Lincoln  Street  Railway 
Co.  In  the  petition  of  the  Illinois  Trans.  R.  R.  Co.  vs.  L.  E.  &  St.  L.  Cons. 
R.  R.  Co.  (Volume  2  of  Decisions,  pp.  1,  6)  the  board  took  jurisdiction  of  a 
like  crossing.  Also  in  the  case  of  the  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  R.  Co.  vs.  Freeport 
Ry.  Co.  in  October,  1903,  (pp.  33-38)  the  commission  took  jurisdiction  over  the 
crossing  of  electric  road  with  steam  road.  In  the  petition  of  the  C.  &  A.  R. 
R.  Co.  vs.  iSt.  L.  &  S.  R.  R.  Co.  where  the  grade  crossing  was  within  the 
limits  of  Carlinville,  111.,  the  commission  took  jurisdiction  of  the  crossing  by 
an  electric  line  of  the  same  company's  tracks. 

These  acts  are  affirmative  constructions  of  the  statute  by  the  commission 
in  favor  of  its  power  over  crossings  of  steam  roads  by  street  railroads,  and 
are  a  complete  answer  to  the  above  contention.  Indeed  these  acts  will  weigh 
with  the  court  as  a  strong  argument  in  favor  of  the  power  of  the  commis- 
sion. 

It  is  further  contended  by  counsel  that  the  policy  of  the  Legislature  has 
been  to  put  street  railways  and  commercial  railroads  in  two  distinct  classes, 
which  for  convenience  may  be  called,  corporations  organized  under  chapter 
32  and  corporations  organized  under  chapter  114.  The  cases  of  Wiggins  Ferry 
Co.  vs.  E.  St.  L.  U.  Ry.  Co.,  107  111.,  456,  also  Harvey  vs.  Aurora  &  Geneva 
Gen.  Ry.  Co.,  174  111.,  307,  are  cited  in  support  of  such  contention  also  the 
further  fact  that  paragraph  25  of  the  powers  of  cities,  has  been  held  to 
apply  only  to  general  or  commercial  railroads  and  the  fact  that  chapter  131, 
page  1236  Starr  &  Curtiss,  Vol.  4  and  Hurd  1903,  page  1834,  each  have  acts 
limited  to  street  railroads,  are  also  urged  as  showing  the  distinction. 

Suppose  that  it  be  granted  that  the  Legislature's  policy vis  to  distinguish  be- 
tween the  two  classes  of  roads,  does  it  follow  that  the  crossing  Acts  of  1889 
and  1891  would  not  apply  to  both  classes,  in  proper  cases?  The  danger  to 
life  and  property  would  come  about  wholly  from  the  use,  and  the  protection 
needed  would  be  required  regardless  of  the  method  of  incorporation.  Corpo- 
rations organized  under  chapter  32  can  run  long  distances,  can  go  through 
the  country  and  carry  travel  for  miles.  In  Russell  vs.  Chicago  Elec.  Ry.  Co., 
205  111.,  155,  the  company  sought  to  extend  its  lines  outside  the  city  limits 
and  the  court  said  that  under  proper  conditions  it  could  do  so. 

An  examination  of  the  corporation  laws  of  Illinois,  in  my  opinion,  confirms 
the  position  and  shows  that  the  distinction  between  street  and  commercial 
railroads  is  solely  with  reference  to  the  powers  of  the  companies  and  not 
with  reference  to  the  police  power  of  the  State  exercised  for  the  protection 
of  life  and  property. 

I  do  not  consider  it  necessary  to  discuss  the  relative  powers  of  railways 
organized  under  chapter  32  and  under  chapter  114  supra.  It  is  true  that  cor- 
porations organized  under  chapter  32  are  much  more  limited  in  their  -powers 
than  those  organized  under  chapter  114.  In  my  opinion,  it  is  not  necessary 
to  discuss  these  limitations.  It  seems  that  the  distinction  made  between  the 
two  classes  of  companies  by  the  courts  is  solely  as  to  the  power  each  class 
may  possess.  This  distinction  as  to  power  in  my  judgment  does  not  in  the 
least  affect  the  question  of  protection  to  life  and  property;  for  the  danger 
comes  from  the  use,  not  from  the  scope  of  the  power  of  the  corporation.  It 
is  also  plain  that  the  danger  will  arise  regardless  of  the  place  of  crossing, 
whether  within  or  without  cities,  villages  and  towns  and  whether  on  or 
off  of  private  ground.  Indeed,  the  danger  will  increase  in  cities  and  still 
further  increase  when  the  crossing  is  in  a  street.  The  danger  to  life  and 
property  being  the  thing  influencing  the  Legislature  under  the  Acts  of  1889 
and  1891,  it  would  seem  that  the  crossings  where  danger  arose,  regardless  of 
their  location  or  the  method  of  organization  of  companies,  were  under  the 
power  of  the  commission. 

-50 


66 

In  consideration  of  the  provisions  of  the  statutes  above  referred  to  and  : 
review  of  the  cases  of  our  own  courts,  and  regardless  of  the  fact  whether  th 
act  creating  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  covered  all  railroai 
companies,  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the  Act  of  1-889  made  the  commission  ai 
independent  tribunal  to  act  upon  disputed  future  crossings,  of  all  companies 
wherever  located,  for  the  protection  of  life  and  property,  and  the  Act  of  189 
enlarged  the  power  of  this  independent  tribunal  to  cover  established  crossing 
upon  the  application  of  either  company  thereto,  and  to  cover  establishei 
crossings,  including  crossings  of  two  tracks  of  the  same  company,  in  all  case 
•where  danger  existed.  This  tribunal  is  to  act  for  the  protection  of  life  am 
property  and  to  make  that  protection  effective,  its  power  covers  all  kinds  o 
crossings,  whether  situated  in  or  outside  of  cities,  on  private  or  publi 
ground,  and  of  any  companies,  for  the  words  in  the  act  are  broad  enough  t 
embrace  all  these  matters.  The  intent  is  broad  enough  to  reach  any  dangei 
ous  crossing  and  the  mischief  to  be  remedied  can  only  be  remedied  by  thu 
construing  these  acts.  Such  being  the  case,  and  as  this  construction  does  no 
strain  the  words  of  the  statute,  but  on  the  contrary,  is  within  the  usua 
meaning  of  the  same,  the  power  of  the  commission  in  my  judgment,  is  we! 
settled. 

I  am  led  to  the  above  conclusion  also  from  examination  of  cases  in  othe 
states  under  similar  statutes.  See  Penn.  R.  Co.  vs.  Braddock  Elec.  Ry.  Co 
165  pa.,  127;  Port  Richmond,  &  Prohibition  Park  Elec.  R.  R.  Co.  vs.  State 
Island  Rapid  Trans.  Co.,  144  N.  Y.,  445;  Stillioater  &  M.  Street  Ry.  Co.  \t 
Boston  &  Maine  R.R.  Co.,  171  N.  Y.,  589,  and.  Rutland  Ry.  Co.  vs.  Bellows  Fall 
and  Sexton  River  St.  Ry.  Co.,  73  Vermont,  20;  Elliot  on  Railroads,  Vol.  < 
Sec.  211,  where  the  author  uses  the  following  language : 

"Street  railways  have  a  right  to  cross  steam  railways  and  it  has  been  hel 
that  the  general  statutes  in  force  regulating  the  manner  in  which  steam  rai 
roads  shall  cross  each  other  are  applicable  in  such  cases;  and  under  a  statut 
which  authorizes  a  "court  to  order  a  crossing  other  than  at  grade,  a  stree 
railway  may  be  ordered  to  construct  an  overhead  crossing."  Citing  Elizi 
bethtown  etc.  R.  R.  vs.  Ashland,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  92  Ky.,  347  and  the  Nei 
York  and  Pennsylvania  cases  above  cited.  Joyce  on  Electric  Law,  Sec.  407 
"The  right  of  the  railroad  at  such  crossings  is  subject  to  the  police  power  o 
the  State." 

In  conclusion,  one  other  argument  in  favor  of  the  power  of  the  commissio 
is  offered,  and  it  is  one  which  greatly  adds  to  the  position  above  taken.  Th 
Act  of  1889  requires  the  commission,  after  the  hearing  to  decide,  "with  du 
regard  to-  the  safety  of  life  and  property."  The  Act  of  1891  requires  the  d( 
cision  to  be  such  a  decision  as  "the  public  good  requires."  These  word 
make  the  question  of  the  power  of  the  commission  over  crossings,  a  questio 
involving  a  public  interest,  and  where  a  public  interest  is  involved,  a  statut 
is  liberally  construed  so  as  to  carry  out  the  best  interests  of  the  public.  I 
these  statutes  are  to  be  liberally  construed  then  they  cover  all  crossings  of  a: 
roads  whenever  the  crossing  is  dangerous  to  life  and  property.  If  a  publi 
interest  is  involved,  the  jurisdiction  of  the  commission  is  presumed  unles 
the  streeet  railroads  can  make  it  appear  that  the  Legislature  by  afflrmativ 
words  exempted  them  from  the  operation  of  the  statutes,  for,  in  that  case,  i 
would  not  be  a  question  of  extending  the  meaning  of  the  statute  by  implies 
tion,  but  of  limiting  it  by  implication,  and  to  place  the  limitation  would  n 
quire  evidence  of  such  an  intent  of  the  Legislature.  This  principle  plainl 
gives  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  authority  over  all  crossing 
for  the  purpose  of  protecting  life  and  property  and  compelling  the  protectio 
of  the  same. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

H.  J.  HAMXIN, 

Attorney  General. 


BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 


Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Company,  Petitioner. 

vs. 
East  St.  Louis  Railway  Company,  Respondent. 

Petition  to  prevent  grade  crossing. 


OPINION  AND  ORDER  OF  THE  COMMISSION. 

On  Oct.  22,  1904,  the  petitioner,  the  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Com- 
pany, duly  filed  in  the  office  of  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  of 
the  State  of  Illinois,  its  petition  to  prevent  the  East  St.  Louis  Railway  Com- 
pany from  crossing  the  tracks  of  its  main  line  at  grade  on  Seventh  street,  in 
the  city  of  East  St.  Louis,  in  the  county  of  St.  Clair  and  State  of  Illinois. 
The  commission  thereupon  caused  due  and  legal  notice  of  the  filing  of  the 
said  petition  to  be  given  to  the  respondent,  the  East  St.  Louis  Railway  Com- 
pany, and  fixed  the  date  for  said  commisison  to  personally  examine  said  pro- 
posed crossing,  for  Oct.  24,  1904. 

And  on  the  24th  day  of  Oct.,  A.  D.  1904,  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Com- 
mission of  the  State  of  Illinois,  together  with  the  officers  and  attorneys  of 
the  petitioner  and  the  respondent,  personally  examined  the  proposed  crossing 
on  Seventh  street  in  the  city  of  East  St.  Louis  and  all  the  surrounding  terri- 
tory, for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  a  grade  crossing  should  be  per- 
mitted on  the  main  line  of  the  tracks  of  the  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad 
Company  at  Seventh  street,  and  afterwards,  on  to-wit,  the  llth  day  of  No- 
vember, A.  D.  1904,  the  respondent  filed  its  answer  to  the  petition  of  the 
Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Company  filed  in  said  cause  on  Oct.  22, 
A.  D.  1904.  The  commission  thereupon  assumed  jurisdiction  of  the  subject 
matter  of  said  petition  and  the  parties  thereto,  and  set  the  cause  for  hearing 
at  the  office  of  the  said  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  in  the  city  of 
Springfield,  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  on  the  llth  day  of  November,  A.  D.  1904. 
At  the  time  and  place  fixed  for  said  hearing,  both  the  petitioner  and  respond- 
ent appeared  before  the  said  commission,  by  their  respective  attorneys,  the 
Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Company  appearing  by  its  attorney,  J.  M. 
Hamill,  and  the  respondent,  the  East  St.  Louis  Railway  Company  appearing 
by  its  attorney,  M.  W.  Schaefer,  and  both  parties  having  announced  them- 
selves ready  to  proceed  with  the  hearing  of  the  cause,  the  commission  heard 
all  of  the  oral  and  documentary  evidence  introduced  by  both  parties.  And 
after  all  the  witnesses  offered  by  both  parties  had  been  fully  examined  in 
reference  to  the  matter,  the  commission  heard  argument  of  both  counsel  for 
petitioner  and  respondent,  and  the  commission,  not  being  fully  advised, 
took  the  cause  under  advisement. 

•  And  now,  on  the  16th  of  November,  A.  D.  1904,  at  a  meeting  of  the 
Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  at  its  office  in  Chicago,  Illinois,  the  com- 
mission now  being  fully  advised  and  informed  in  the  premises,  find  that  the 
petitioner,  the  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Company,  is  operating  a  line 
of  steam  railway  extending  from  East  St.  Louis,  across  the  State  of  Illinois, 
and  through  the  states  of  Indiana  and  Kentucky,  to  the  city  of  Nashville,  in 
the  state  of  Tennessee,  and  that  the  line  of  railroad  operated  by  it  crosses 
Seventh  street  in  East  St.  Louis. 

The  commission  further  finds  that  the  East  St.  Louis  Railway  Company  is 
operating  all  of  the  electric  lines  of  railway  operated  in  the  city  of  East  St. 
Louis,  and  that  it  proposes  to  cross  with  its  tracks  the  main  tracks  of  the 
Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Company  on  Seventh  street  in  said  city  of 
East  St.  Louis. 

That  said  East  St.  Louis  Railway  Company  is  incorporated  under  the  gen- 
eral incorporation  laws  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  for  the  purpose  of  owning  and 


68 

operating  an  electric  railway  in  the  city  of  East  St.  Louis,  and  that  the  com- 
mission have  jurisdiction  and  authority  over  such  line  of  electric  railway. 
The  commission  further  find  that  the  proposed  crossing  of  the  East  St. 
Louis  Railway  with  the  main  tracks  of  the  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad 
Company  at  Seventh  street,  in  East  St.  Louis,  is  at  the  center  of  a  seven- 
degree  curve  in  the  tracks  of  the  said  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad.  That 
on  account  of  said  curve,  employe's  of  petitioner  in  charge  of  its  trains  ap- 
proaching Seventh  street  crossing  from  either  direction,  could  not  see  the 
electric  cars  at  said  crossing,  until  said  cars  would  be  on  the  crossing,  and  the 
employe's  of  respondent,  in  charge  of  its  cars,  approaching  said  Seventh  street 
crossing,  from  either  direction,  could  not  see  the  trains  or  locomotives  of 
petitioner  from  either  direction,  until  such  electric  cars  would  be  on"  such 
crossing. 

That  from  Seventh  street  westwardly  to  St.  Clair  avenue  in  said  city  of 
East  St.  Louis,  there  is  a  very  heavy  ascending  grade  in  the  tracks  of  the 
Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  and  from  Seventh  street  eastwardly,  there 
is  also  an  up-grade  in  the  tracks  of  the  said  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad 
Company.  That  on  account  of  said  curve  and  said  grade,  heavy  freight  trains 
approaching  said  Seventh  street  crossing  from  either  direction,  on  the  said 
Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad,  could  not  be  stopped  at  said  crossing,  and 
thereby  there  would  be  caused  constant  danger  of  collisions  between  trains 
of  said  petitioner  and  the  electric  cars  of  respondent,  passing  over  said 
crossing. 

The  commission  further  find  that  to  accommodate  all  the  travel  on  re- 
spondent's road  and  its  connections,  a  car  would  have  to  pass  over  said 
Seventh  street  crossing  every  fifteen  minutes,  in  one  direction  or  the  other. 

That  the  petitioner  runs  many  passenger  and  freight  trains  each  way  daily, 
over  said  crossing.  That  the  number  of  electric  cars  on  respondent's  railway 
and  the  number  of  passenger  and  freight  trains  on  petitioner's  line  would 
constantly  increase;  and  that  said  crossing  is  within  the  yard  limits,  used  for 
switching  purposes  by  petitioner  in  its  East  St.  Louis  yards. 

The  commission  further  find  that  a  grade  crossing  on  Seventh  street  in  said 
city  of  East  St.  Louis  would  be  a  very  dangerous  crossing,  and  that  that  place 
is  not  a  fit  nor  proper  place  for  respondent  to  cross  with  its  tracks  the  main 
line  of  petitioner's  railroad,  and  that  such  crossing  would  unnecessarily  im- 
pede or  endanger  the  travel  and  transportation  upon  the  main  line  of  peti- 
tioner's railroad,  and  would  unnecessarily  endanger  life  and  property  both  on 
petitioner's  and  on  respondent's  railroad,  at  said  crossing. 

The  commission  further  find,  that  by  an  act  passed  by  the  General  Assembly 
of  the  State  of  Illinois,  entitled  "An  Act  in  relation  to  the  crossing  of  one 
railway  by  another,  and  to  prevent  danger  to  life  and  property  from  grade 
crossings,"  approved  May  27,  1889,  in  force  July  1,  1889,  it  is  provided  that 
"hereafter  any  railroad  company  desiring  to  cross  with  its  tracks  the  main 
line  of  another  railroad  company,  shall  construct  the  crossing  at  such  place 
and  in  such  manner,  as  will  not  unnecessarily  impede  or  endanger  the  travel 
or  transportation  upon  the  railway  so  crossed.  If  in  any  case  objection  be 
made  to  the  place  or  mode  of  crossing  proposed  by  the  company  desiring 
the  same,  either  party  may  apply  to  the  Board  of  Railroad  and  Warehouse 
Commissioners,  and  it  shall  be  their  duty  to  view  the  ground  and  give  all 
parties  interested  an  opportunity  to  be  heard.  After  full  investigation,  and 
with  due  regard  to  safety  of  life  and  property,  said  board  shall  give  a  de- 
cision prescribing  the  place  where  and  the  manner  in  which  said  crossing 
shall  be  made,"  etc. 

From  the  personal  inspection  of  the  ground  on  which  said  proposed  cross- 
ing would  be  located,  made  by  this  commission,  and  from  the  proofs  intro- 
duced in  evidence  in  this  cause,  the  commission  are  clearly  of  the  opinion 
that  under  the  act  above  referred  to,  it  is  their  duty  to  prohibit  a  grade 
crossing  of  the  tracks  of  the  petitioner's  main  line,  at  grade  on  Seventh 
street,  in  East  St.  Louis,  as  such  crossing  would  be  both  unnecessarily  dan- 
gerous to  life  and  property  and  would  unnecessarily  impede  or  endanger  the 
travel  or  transportation  upon  the  main  line  of  petitioners'  railroad. 

It  is  therefore  ordered  by  the  commission,  that  the  respondent,  the  East 
St.  Louis  Railway  Company,  construct  and  build  an  overhead  bridge  crossing 


69 

over  the  railroad  tracks  and  right  of  way  of  petitioner,  the  Louisville  & 
Nashville  Railroad  Company,  on  which  to  lay  its  electric  track  or  tracks,  for 
the  purpose  of  crossing  over  the  main  tracks  and  right  of  way  of  petitioner, 
the  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Company,  on,  or  immediately  adjacent  to 
Seventh  street,  in  East  St.  Louis,  such  overhead  crossing  to  leave,  at  least, 
full  twenty-two  (22)  feet  in  the  clear  between  the  top  of  the  rails  of  the 
petitioner's  tracks  and  the  lower  part  of  the  superstructure  of  said  overhead 
bridge;  said  overhead  bridge  to  be  constructed  and  maintained  so  as  not  to  in 
any  way  interfere  with,  impede,  obstruct  or  delay  the  passage  of  trains,  or 
interfere  with,  or  endanger  the  lives  or  limbs  of  the  employe's  of  the  peti- 
tioner, the  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Company,  while  on  the  locomo- 
tive, cars  or  trains  of  petitioner,  and  passing  under  said  bridge  or  viaduct,  on 
and  over  the  tracks  of  petitioner,  at  or  under  said  bridge  or  viaduct,  and  ad- 
jacent to  Seventh  street  crossing  in  the  city  of  East  St.  Louis;  and  said 
respondent,  the  East  St.  Louis  Railway  Company,  is  hereby  ordered  and 
directed,  not  to  cross  with  its  tracks  the  main  line  of  petitioner,  the  Louis- 
ville &  Nashville  Railroad  Company,  on  or  adjacent  to  Seventh  street,  in  said 
city  of  East  St.  Louis,  in  any  other  way  than  by  an  overhead  or  viaduct 
•crossing,  to  be  constructed  and  forever  maintained  by  the  said  respondent, 
the  East  St.  Louis  Railway  Company,  over  and  across  the  right  of  way  and 
railroad  tracks  of  the  petitioner,  the  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Com- 
pany on  or  immediately  adjacent  to  Seventh  street,  in  said  city  of  East 
.St.  Louis. 

It  is  further  ordered  that  the  said  respondent,  the  East  St.  Louis  Railway 
Company,  pay  the  entire  cost  of  construction  and  maintenance  of  such  over- 
head bridge  or  viaduct  crossing,  including  all  necessary  approaches  thereto; 
.and  that  said  respondent,  the  East  St.  Louis  Railway  Company,  also  pay 
all  the  cost  of  this  proceeding  before  the  said  Railroad  and  Warehouse 
•Commission. 

J.   S.   NEVILLE, 
ARTHUR.  L.  FRENCH, 

Attest:     WM.  KILPATRICK,  Commissioners. 

Secretary. 

Dated  at  the  office  of  the  commission  in  Chicago,  111.,  this  5th  day  of 
-January,  1905. 


BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 


Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Company,  Petitioner. 

vs. 
East  St.  Louis  &  Suburban  Railway  Company,  Respondent. 

Petition  for  protecting  crossing  by  interlocking  or  overhead  crossing. 

ORDER  OF  THE  COMMISSION. 

On  Oct.  22,  1904,  the  petitioner,  the  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Com- 
pany, duly  filed  in  the  office  of  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  of 
the  State  of  Illinois,  its  petition  for  the  construction  of  an  interlocking  plant 
at  the  crossing  of  the  East  St.  Louis  &  Suburban  Railway  where  it  crosses 
the  tracks  of  the  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Company  at  gr^de  in  the 
southeast  quarter  of  the  northwest  quarter  of  section  twenty-five  (25),  town- 
ship two  (2),  north  range  nine  (9)  west,  in  French  Village,  in  the  county  of 
St.  Glair  and  State  of  Illinois;  as  shown  on  blue  print  marked  "Exhibit  A" 
to  the  petition  of  the  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Company. 

The  commission  thereupon  caused  due  and  legal  notice  of  the  filing. of  said 
petition  to  be  given  to  the  respondent,  the  East  St.  Louis  &  Suburban  Rail- 
way Company  and  on  the  24th  day  of  October,  1904,  the  Railroad  and  Ware- 


70 

.i  • 

house  Commission  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  together  with  the  officers  and 
attorneys  of  the 'petitioner  and  respondent  personally  examined  the  crossing 
at  grade  at  the  point  above  described  where  the  tracks  of  the  East  St.  Louis 
&  Suburban  Railway  Company  cross  the  tracks  of  the  Louisville  &  Nashville 
Railroad  Company;  and  afterwards  on  the  26th  day  of  October,  1904,  the 
respondent  filed  its  answer  to  the  petition-  of  the  Louisville  &  Nashville  Rail- 
road Company  in  said  cause.  The  commission  thereupon  assumed  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  subject  matter  of  said  petition  and  the  parties  thereto,  and  set  the 
cause  for  hearing  at  the  office  of  said  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission, 
in  the  city  of  Springfield  and  State  of  Illinois  on  the  llth  day  of  November, 
A.  D.  1904.  At  the  time  and  place  fixed  for  the  hearing  of  said  petition, 
petitioner  and  respondent  appeared  before  said  commission  by  their  respec- 
tive attorneys,  the  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Company  appearing  by  its 
attorney,  J.  M.  Hamill,  "and  the  East  St.  Louis  &  Suburban  Railway  Company 
appearing  by  its  attorney,  M.  W.  Schaefer,  and  both  parties  having  announced 
themselves  ready  to  proceed  with  the  hearing  of  said  cause,  the  commission 
heard  all  of  the  oral  and  documentary  evidence  introduced  by  both  parties; 
and  after  the  evidence  of  the  witnesses  offered  by  both  parties  had  been 
given  in  reference  to  the  matter,  the  commission  heard  argument  of  both 
counsel  for  petitioner  and  for  respondent,  and  the  commission  not  being  fully 
advised  took  the  cause  under  advisement. 

And  now,  on  the  14th  day:of  February,  1905,  at  a  meeting  of  the  Railroad 
and  Warehouse  Commission  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  at  its  office  in  Springfield 
in  the  State  of  Illinois,  the  commissioners  now  being  fully  advised  and 
informed  in  the  premises,  find  that  the  petitioner,  the  Louisville  &  Nash- 
ville Railroad  Company,  is  operating  a  line  of  steam  railroad  extending  from 
the  city  of  East  St.  Louis  in  the  county  of  St.  Clair  and  State  of  Illinois, 
across  the  State  of  Illinois  and  through  the  states  of  Indiana  and  Kentucky 
and  to  the  city  of  Nashville  in  the  state  of  Tennessee;  and  that  the  line  of 
railroad  operated  by  it  is  crossed  by  the  tracks  of  the  East  St.  Louis  and 
Suburban  Railway  Company  at  French  Village  at  the  point  hereinbefore 
described. 

The  commission  further  find  that  the  East  St.  Louis  &  Suburban  Railway 
Company  is  operating  a  line  of  electric  railroad  extending  from  the  city  of 
East  St.  Louis  in  the  county  of  St.  Clair  and  'State  of  Illinbis,  eastwkrdly  to 
Edgmont  in  said  county,  thence  northeasterly  to  French  Village  and  Casey- 
ville  in  said  county  of  St.  Clair  and  to  Collinsville  .and  Edwardsville  in  the 
county  of  Madison  in  the  State  of  Illinois;  and  that  said  East  St.  Louis  & 
Suburban  Railway  Company  is  a  common. carrier  of  passengers  and  express 
over  the  railway  above  described  and  crosses  at  grade  with  its  tracks  the 
tracks  of  the  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Company  at  French  Village  at 
the  point  hereinbefore  described,  as  shown  on  blue  print  marked  "Exhibit 
A"  to  the  petition.  That  said  East  St.  Louis  &  Suburban  Railway  Company, 
immediately  north  of  the  right  of  way  of  petitioner,  crosses  with  its  tracks 
the  tracks  of  the  St.  Louis  &  O'Fallon  Railway  Company  at  grade,  as  shown 
on  the  blue  print  marked  "Exhibit  A"  to  the  petition,  which  is  a  line  of 
steam  railway  extending  from  the  city  of  East  St.  Louis  in  the  county  of  St. 
Clair  and  State  of  Illinois,  eastwardly  to  French  Village  and  thence  north- 
easterly to  near  the  town  of  O'Fallon  in  the  county  of  St.  Clair  and  State  of 
Illinois;  that  said  St.  Louis  &  O'Fallon  Railway  Company  is  a  common  car- 
rier of  freight.  That  in  the  track  of  the  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad 
Company  running  southeastwardly  from  said  crossing  there  is  a  two  (2)  de- 
gree curve;  and  that  the  tracks  of  the  East  St.  Louis  &  Suburban  Railway 
Company  are  practically  straight.  That  from  said  crossing  in  a  southeast- 
wardly and  northwesterly  direction  there  is  an  up-grade  of  sixteen  (16)  feet 
to  the  mile  in  the  tracks  of  the  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Company  for 
a  distance  of  5,000  feet  or  more  on  each  side  of  said  crossing,  as  shown  by 
profile  marked  "Exhibit  B"  to  the  petition. 

That  from  said  crossing  in  a  northeasterly  direction,  there  is  an  up-grade 
in  the  tracks  of  the  East  St.  Louis  &  Suburban  Railway  Company  of  over 
one  hundred  eight  (108)  feet  to  the  mile  for  a  distance  of  one  thousand  feet  or 
more;  and  that  in  approaching  said  crossing  from  the  northeast  on  said  subur- 
ban track  said  grade  for  more  than  one  thousand  feet  keeps  descending  on  a 


grade  of  over  one  hundred  eight  (108)  feet  to  the  mile  up  to  said  crossing,  as 
shown  by  said  profile.  That  the  East  St.  Louis  &  Suburban  Railway  Com- 
pany runs  one  car  in  one  direction  or  the  other  over  said  crossing  every 
twenty  or  thirty  minutes  in  the  day  time  and  in  the  night  time  up  to  mid- 
night. That  all  travel  on  the  Lebanon  line,  hereinafter  described,  passes 
over  said  crossing  in  cars  of  the  East  St.  Louis  &  Suburban  Railway  Com- 
pany. That  petitioner,  the  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Company,  runs 
many  passenger  and  heavy  freight  trains  some  of  them  carrying  from  seventy- 
five  (75)  to  one  hundred  (100)  coal  cars  loaded  when  running  northwest  and 
empty  when  running  southeast  daily  over  said  crossing;  that  on  account  of 
the  heavy  grades  and  sharp  curves  described  above  on  both  petitioner  and 
respondent's  railways,  on  account  of  the  large  number  of  cars  carrying  pas- 
sengers and  express  running  over  said  crossing  on  the  East  St.  Louis  & 
Suburban  Railway  and  the  large  number  of  passenger  and  heavy  freight 
trains,  carrying  passengers  and  freight,  running  over  said  crossing  on  the 
Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad,  and  the  danger  of  collisions  between  said 
passenger  and  freight  trains  running  over  petitioner's  line,  and  the  cars  run- 
ning over  the  respondent's  line,  said  crossing  is  dangerous  to  life  and 
property. 

The  commission  further  find  that  the  crossing  above  described  on  account 
of  the  steep  grade  in  the  tracks  of  the  East  St.  Louis  &  Suburban  Railway 
Company  hereinbefore  described,  and  on  account  of  the  grade  and  curves  in 
the  track  of  the  Louisville  &.  Nashville  Railroad  Company,  hereinbefore 
described,  said  grade  crossing  is  dangerous  to  both  persons  and  property  be- 
ing transported  over  the  line  of  either  railroad.  That  from  the  personal  in- 
spection made  by  the  commission  of  the  ground  on  which  said  crossing  is 
located,  and  from  the  proofs  introduced  in  evidence  in  this  cause,  the  com- 
mission are  clearly  of  opinion  that  it  is  their  duty  to  require  an  overhead 
crossing  to  be  constructed  and  maintained  at  a  point  within  four  hundred 
(400)  feet  west  of  where  the  East  St.  Louis  &  Suburban  Railway  now  crosses 
the  tracks  of  the  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Company  at  French  Village, 
at  the  place  hereinbefore  described. 

It  is  further  ordered  by  the  commission  that  the  respondent,  the  East  St. 
Louis  &  Suburban  Railway  Company,  construct  and  build  an  overhead  cross- 
ing over  the  right  of  way  and  railroad  tracks  of  the  petitioner,  the  Louisville 
&  Nashville  Railroad  Company,  at  a  point  within  four  hundred  (400)  feet  west 
of  where  the  East  St.  Louis  &  Suburban  Railway  Company  now  crosses  with 
its  tracks  the  tracks  of  the  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Company,  at  the 
point  hereinbefore  described  in  French  Village,  in  the  county  of  St.  Glair  and 
State  of  Illinois;  such  overhead  crossing  to  leave  at  least  fully  twenty-two  feet 
in  the  clear  between  the  top  of  the  rails  of  petitioner's  railroad  tracks  and 
the  lower  part  of  the  superstructure  of  said  overhead  bridge;  said  overhead 
bridge  to  be  constructed  and  maintained  so  as  not  to  in  any  way  interfere  with 
impede,  obstruct  or  delay  the  passage  of  trains,  or  interfere  with  or  endanger 
the  lives  of  the  employes  of  the  petitioner,  the  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad 
Company,  while  on  the  locomotives,  cars  or  trains  of  the  petitioner,  and 
passing  under  such  bridge  or  viaduct  on  and  over  the  tracks  of  petitioner  at 
or  under  the  said  bridge  or  viaduct,  or  adjacent  to  said  bridge  or  viaduct, 
when  constructed  at  the  place  above  described.  And  said  respondent,  the 
East  St.  Louis  &  Suburban  Railway  Company,  is  hereby  ordered  to  construct 
and  have  in  operation,  said  bridge  or  viaduct  for  the  purpose  of  laying  down 
its  tracks  thereon  across  the  main  track  and  right  of  way  of  the  Louisville  & 
Nashville  Railroad  Company  at  the  point  above  described,  within  one  (1) 
year  from  the  14th  day  of  February,  A.  D.  1905;  and  that  said  East  St.  Louis 
&  Suburban  Railway  Company  be,  and  it  is  hereby  required  to  construct  said 
bridge  or  viaduct  for  the  purpose  aforesaid,  within  the  time  aforesaid  and 
thereafter  to  forever  maintain  the  same  for  the  purpose  of  crossing  with  its 
tracks  the  right  of  way  and  railroad  tracks  of  the  Louisville  &  Nashville 
Railroad  Company. 

It  is  further  ordered  that  said  respondent,  the  East  St.  Louis  &  Subur- 
ban Railway  Company,  pay  the  entire  cost  of  the  construction  and  mainten- 
ance of  such  bridge  or  viaduct,  including  all  necessary  approaches  thereto, 
except  fifteen  hundred  (1,500)  dollars  to  be  paid  by  the  Louisville  &  Nash- 
ville Railroad  Company  towards  the  construction  alone  of  said  overhead 


72 

bridge  or  viaduct  and  said  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Company  is  to 
grant  the  right  of  way,  without  compensation,  across  the  right  of  way  and 
railroad  tracks  of  the  said  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Compa.ny  for  said 
overhead  bridge  or  viaduct;  and  that  the  respondent,  the  East  St.  Louis  & 
Suburban  Railway  Company,  after  said  overhead  bridge  or  viaduct  has  been 
constructed  and  built,  shall  forever  thereafter  pay  the  entire  cost  of  the 
maintenance  and  repair  thereof;  and  that  said  East  St.  Louis  &  Suburban 
Railway  Company  and  the  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Company  shall 
each  pay  one-half  of  the  cost  of  this  proceeding  before  the  said  Railroad  and 
Warehouse  Commission. 

[Signed]     J.  S.  NEVILLE,  Chairman. 

ARTHUR  L.  FBENCH,  Commissioner. 
Springfield,  111.,  Feb.  14,  1905. 


L.  M.  Hammond, 
vs. 

L.  S.  &  M.  S.  Ry.  Co. 
Illinois  Central  R.   R.  Co. 
B.  &  O.  R.  R.  Co. 
P.  C.  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co. 

Complaint  of  excessive  switching  charges  in  Chicago. 
Dec.  6,  1904.    Complaint  filed  and  copy  served  on  respondent  companies. 
Jan.  17,  1905.    Title  of  complaint  changed  to  Coal  Shippers'  Association  vs. 
same  respondents. 
Case  still  pending. 


National  Mining  Company, 

vs. 
Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Company. 

Excessive  switching  charge  from  Eldorado  to  mine. 

Feb.  7,  1905.    Complaint  filed  and  respondent  company  served  with  copy. 

March  7,  1905.     Hearing  of  case  at  Springfield. 

Settled  by  agreement. 


The  Wabash  Railroad  Company, 

vs. 
Bloomington,   Pontiac  &  Joliet  Electric  Railway  Company, 

and 

Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company, 

vs. 
Bloomington,   Pontiac  &   Joliet  Electric  Railway  Company. 

Complaint  as  to  Crossing. 

ORDER. 

Now  on  this  llth  day  df  April,  A.  D.  1905,  this  cause  coming  on  to  be  heard 
the  petitioner,  The  Wabash  Railroad  Company,  appearing  by  C.  N.  Travous 
and  R.  S.  Mcllduff,  its  attorneys;  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company,  by 
John  G.  Drennan,  its  attorney,  and  the  Bloomington,  Pontiac  &  Joliet  Electric 
Railway  Company,  by  A.  C.  Norton,  its  attorney;  and  it  also  appearing  to  thi 


73 

commission  that  formal  pleadings  have  been  waived  and  that  each  of  the 
parties  hereto  has  appeared  herein  and  submitted  itself  to  the  jurisdiction  of 
this  commission  for  the  purpose  of  having  this  commission  prescribe  the  place 
where  and  the  manner  in  which  the  railroad  tracks  of  the  said  Bloomington, 
Pontiac  &  Joliet  Electric  Railway  Company  shall  cross  the  tracks  of  the  said 
Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company  and  the  said  Wabash  Railroad  Company 
at  the  point  where  said  last  two  named  tracks  now  intersect  in  the  Township 
of  Pontiac,  Livingston  county,  Illinois,  and  for  such  further  orders  as  to  this 
commision  shall  seem  meet,  and  this  commission  having  viewed  the  ground 
at  said  crossing,  and  given  all  parties  an  opportunity  to  be  heard,  and  having 
due  regard  for  the  safety  of  life  and  property,  does  hereby  make  and  order  as 
follows: 

That  the  said  Bloomington,  Pontiac  &  Joliet  Electric  Railway  Company 
shall  be  permitted  and  is  hereby  authorized  to  cross  the  tracks  or  track  and 
rights-of-way  of  the  said  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company  and  said  The  Wa- 
bash Railroad  Company  at  the  place  and  in  the  manner  shown  in  Exhibit  "A" 
subject  to  the  provisions,  conditions  and  limitations  hereinafter  set  forth  with 
reference  to  crossings. 

That  the  said  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company  and  the  said  The  Wabash 
Railroad  Company  shall  each  at  its  own  expense  on  or  before  the  first  day  of 
June,  1905,  raise  its  tracks  at  said  proposed  crossing  to  a  point  four  feet 
higher  than  that  which  they  now  respectively  occupy. 

That  said  Bloomington,  Pontiac  &  Joliet  Electric  Railway  Company  shall 
cross  said  respective  tracks  and  rights-of-way  of  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad 
Company  and  The  Wabash  Railroad  Company  underneath  said  tracks  by 
means  of  a  subway,  which  subway,  including  substructures  and  superstructure 
thereof  shall  be  constructed  at  the  expense  of  the  Bloomington,  Pontiac  & 
Joliet  Electric  Railway  Company  and  of  such  material  and  design  and  in  ac- 
cordance with  such  plans  and  specifications  therefor  as  may  be  approved  by 
the  chief  engineers  of  said  three  companies,  and  in  case  of  failure  or  inability 
of  said  chief  engineers  to  agree  in  relation  thereto,  the  same  shall  be  sub- 
mitted to  this  commission  for  its  approval,  after  notice  and  opportunity  to 
each  of  the  parties  to  be  heard  upon  the  same. 

The  said  subway  shall  have  sufficient  clearness  to  permit  the  safe  passage 
of  the  cars  of  said  Bloomington,  Pontiac  &  Joliet  Electric  Railway  Company 
under  said  tracks,  and  the  said  substructures  and  superstructures  thereof 
shall  be  extended  of  sufficient  width  to  permit  the  laying  of  additional  tracks 
on  the  rights-of-way  of  said  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company  and  said  The 
Wabash  Railroad  Company,  whenever  said  companies,  or  either  of  them,  may 
desire  to  lay  additional  tracks  thereon. 

The  said  subway,  substructures  and  superstructures  shall  also  be  main- 
tained and  renewed  by  and  at  the  expense  of  the  Bloomington,  Pontiac  & 
Joliet  Electric  Railway  Company  so  as  to  be  at  all  times  in  good  and  safe  con- 
dition for  the  passage  of  trains  and  operation  of  the  railroads  of  the  Illinois 
Central  Railroad  Company  and  The  Wabash  Railroad  Company. 

The  temporary  structure  necessary  to  carry  the  trains  of  said  Illinois 
Central  Railroad  Company  and  The  Wabash  Railroad  Company  over  said 
crossing  pending  the  construction  of  the  permanent  subway  structure  shall  be 
made  by  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company  upon  its  right-of-way  and  the 
Wabash  Railroad  Company  upon  its  right-of-way,  but  at  the  cost  and  expense 
of  the  Bloomington,  Pontiac  &  Joliet  Electric  Railway  Company. 

It  is  further  ordered  that  for  a  period  of  ninety  days  said  Bloomington, 
Pontiac  &  Joliet  Electric  Railway  Company  shall,  without  expense  to  or  lia- 
bility on  the  part  of  either  of  the  said  Illinois  Central  or  The  Wabash  Railroad 
Companies,  have  a  right  to  install  a  temporary  crossing  over  the  tracks  and 
right-of-way  of  said  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company  and  said  The  Wabash 
Railroad  Company,  respectively,  at  grade,  at  the  points  where  the  tracks  of 
said  Bloomington,  Pontiac  &  Joliet  Electric  Railway  Company  now  intersect 
the  right-of-way  of  the  said  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company  and  The  Wa- 
bash Railroad  Company;  the  wires  of  said  Bloomington,  Pontiac  &  Joliet 
Electric  Railway  Company  to  be  so  placed  as  not  to  endanger  or  inconveni- 
ence either  the  said  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company  or  said  The  Wabash 


74 

Railroad  Company.  Said  Bloomington,  Pontiae  &  Joliet  Electric  Railway 
Company  shall  furnish,  install  and  maintain  the  crosing  and  the  crossing 
frogs,  switches  and  appurtenances  to  make  said  temporary  crossings  at  grade 
as  aforesaid,  including  proper  derailing  devices,  the  same  to  be  done  in  a 
manner  satisfactory  to  this  commission. 

It  is  further  ordered  that  said  temporary  crossings  shall  be  removed  within 
ninety  days  from  this,  date,  and  if  not  so  removed,  the  said  Illinois  Central 
Railroad  Company  and  the  said  The  Wabash  Railroad  Company  nvy  upon 
twenty-four  hours  notice  to  said  Bloomington,  Pontiac  &  Joliet  Electric  Rail- 
way Company  tear  up  and  remove  the  same;  unless  in  the  meantime  this  com- 
mission makes  order  to  the  contrary. 

It  is  further  ordered  that  if  for  any  cause  not  due  to  the  fault  or  neglect  of 
said  Bloomiagton,  Pontiac  &  Joliet  Electric  Railway  Company,  it  is  unable  to 
complete  said  underground  crossing  within  ninety  days,  then  it  may  apply  to 
this  commission  for  an  extension  of  time  for  a  completion  of  the  same,  and 
an  extension  of  time  for  the  maintenance  of  the  temporary  crossing  or  cross- 
ings hereinbefore  mentioned. 

Said  Bloomington,  Pontiac  &  Joliet  Electric  Railway  Company  shall  be  lia- 
ble to  said  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company  and  the  said  The  Wabash  Rail- 
road Company  for  all  loss  or  damage  to  persons  or  property  that  may  occur 
by  reason  of  the  construction  or  maintenance  of  the  temporary  crossing  afore- 
said, or  by  reason  of  failure  or  neglect  on  the  part  of  the  Bloomington,  Pon- 
tiac &  Joliet  Electric  Railway  Company  to  comply  with  the  terms  and  con- 
ditions of  this  order. 

[Signed]     J.  S.  NEVILLE,  Chairman. 

ABTHUE  L.  FBENCH,  Commissioner. 

Springfield,  111.,  April  1K  1905. 


,.      ,,        Citizens  of  Fairfleld,  Illinois, 

vs. 
Southern  Railway. 

Insufficient  train  service. 

April  5,  1905.    Complaint  filed  and  copy  served  upon  respondent  company. 
April  25,  1905.     Complaint  dismissed  by  petitioners  with  permission  to  re- 
instate. 


Thomas  Aiken, 

vs. 
Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission. 

Injunction  to  prevent  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  and  its  grain 
inspectors  from  grading  Pacific  Coast  wheat  as  "Red  Winter  Wheat." 

May  6,  1905.    Temporary  writ  of  injunction  served  on  commission. 

May  16,  1905.  Case  heard  before  circuit  court  at  Edwardgville,  upon  motion 
to  dismiss  the  injunction.  Case  dismissed. 


Danville  &  Indiana  Harbor  R.  R.  Co. 

vs. 
The  Chicago  Southern  R.  R.  Co. 

Petition  to  prescribe  place  where  and  the  manner  in  which  a  crossing  be- 
tween the  above  named  roads  shall  be  made,  near  Danville,  Vermilion  county, 
Illinois. 

May  4,  1905.    Petition  filed  and  copy  served  oh  respondent  company. 

May  6,  1905.  Petition  dismissed  on  request  of  petitioner.  Crossing  made 
by  agreement. 


75 

Illinois  Northern  Ry.  Co., 

vs. 
Chicago  &  Illinois  Western  Ry.  Co. 

Petitioners  object  to  a  grade  crossing  near  Corwith  and  request  the  com- 
mission to  decide  the  place  where  and  the  manner  in  which  crossing  shall  be 
made. 

May  15.  1905.    Petition  filed. 

May  15,  1905.    Respondent  company  served  with  copy  of  petition.. 

May  25,  1905.    Commission  viewed  place  of  proposed  crossing. 

June  8,  1905.  Case  on  call  for  hearing  and  postponed  by  agreement.  Case 
still  pending. 


The  St.  Louis  Hay  &  Grain  Co., 

vs. 

Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  Ry.  Co. 

Chicago,  Peoria  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co. 

Cleveland,  Cincinnati,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co. 

Chicago  &  Alton  Ry.  Co. 

The  Wabash  R.  R.  Co.  ' .',', 

Toledo,  St.  Louis  &  Western  R.  R.  Co. 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  Southwestern  R.  R.  Co. 

Terre  Haute  &  Indianapolis  R.  R.  Co. 

iSouthern  Ry.  Co. 

Wiggins  Ferry  Co. 

East  St  Louis  Connecting  Ry.  Co.  and 

Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. 

Complaint  charging  $2.00  ^consignment  charge  at  East  8t.  Louis  as  illegal. 

May  31,  1905.    Complaint  filed  and  respondent  companies  served  with  copy. 

July  13,  1905.    Amended  petition  filed. 

July  19,  1905.    Case  heard  at  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  and  argument  on  behalf  of 
complainants  to  be  filed  by  brief. 

Case  still  pending. 

St.  Louis  Hay  &  Grain  Co, 

vs.  "  i 

Southern  Ry.  Co. 

East  St  Louis  Connecting  Ry.  Co. 

The   Central   Car   Service  Association. 

Excessive  car  service  charge  and  discrimination. 

June  28,  1905.    Complaint  filed  and  respondent  companies  served  with  copy. 
July  19,  1905.    Case  heard  at  St.  Louis,  Mo. 
Dec.  5,  1905.     Case  dismissed  on  request  of  complainant. 


Macoupin  County  Railway  Company, 

vs. 
The  St.  Louis  &  Springfield  Railway  Company. 

Petition  objecting  to  a  grade  crossing  near  Benld,  and  asking  the  commis- 
sion to  decide  the  place  where  and  the  manner  in  which  a  crossing  shall  be 
made. 

July  1,  1905.    Petition  filed  and  respondent  company  served  with  copy. 

Petition  dismissed  on  request  of  petitioners  and  crossing  made  by  agree- 
ment. 


76 

Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  Company, 

vs. 
Springfield  &  St.  Louis  Railway  Company. 

In  the  matter  of  a  crossing  at  lies,  Sangamon  County. 

The  following  order  is  entered  by  agreement  of  the  parties  hereto: 
The  petition  of  the  Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  Company  to  cross  the  right 
of  way  and  tracks  of  the  Springfield  &  St.  Louis  Railway  Company  is  hereby 
granted  and  the  place  and  manner  of  said  crossing  is  fixed  as  follows  to-wit: 

1.  Said  crossing  shall  be  made  near  the  line  between  sections  eight  (8)  and 
nine  (9),  township  fifteen  (15)  north,  range  five  (5)  west  of  the  third  P.  M., 
Sangamon  county,  Illinois,  near  the  southwest  corner  of  said  section  nine. 

2.  The  right  of  way  and  tracks  of  the  Springfield  company  shall  be  de- 
pressed at  a  one  per  cent  grade  so  that  at  the  point  of  crossing  the  top  of  the 
rails  of  the  Springfield  company  shall  be  a  height  not  tto  exceed  ten  (10)  feet 
below  the  present  height  of  the  rail  of  the  said  Springfield  company. 

3.  The  tracks  of  the  Alton  company  shall  be  carried  over  and  above  the 
track  and  right  of  way  of  the  Springfield  company  upon  such  a  grade  as  the 
Alton  company  may  elect  and  to  such  a  height  as  shall  give  sixteen  (16)  feet 
clear  head  room  above  the  top  of  rails  of  the  Springfield  company's  track  as 
depressed  as  aforesaid.    The  tracks  of  the  Alton  company  shall  be  upheld  at 
said  point  of  crossing  by  steel  bridges  upon  concrete  abutments.     The  width 
measured  perpendicularly  between  abutments  shall  be  twenty-five  (25)   feet. 

For  the  purpose  of  draining  the  depressed  right  of  way  of  the  Spring- 
field company,  there  shall  be  laid  a  line  of  ten  (10)  inch  vitrified  tile  along 
the  line  to  be  mutually  agreed  upon.  The  same  shall  be  laid  in  accordance 
with  the  city  specifications  for  sewer  building  of  the  city  of  Bloomington  by 
a  contractor  to  be  mutually  selected  by  the  parties  hereto  and  under  the  su- 
pervision of  the  duly  authorized  agent  of  the  Springfield  company. 

The  entire  cost  of  furnishing  and  laying  said  drain  shall  be  borne  by  the 
Alton  company. 

5.  The  Springfield  company,  shall  at  its  own  expense  furnish  the  addi- 
tional right  of  way  made  necessary  by  the  depression  of  its  said  tracks. 

6.  All  other  expense  in  connection  with  the  depressing  the  right  of  way 
and  tracks  and  of  the  re-surfacing  and  re-ballasting  of  the  tracks  of  the 
Springfield  company,  and  of  the  building  of  said  bridge  and  abutments  and 
the  approaches  thereto,  shall  be  borne  by  the  Alton  company. 

7.  The  said  bridges  and  abutments  shall  be  maintained  by  the  Alton  com- 
pany and  said  tile  drain  maintained  by  the  Springfield  company. 

8.  The  excavation  for  the  lowering  of  the  Springfield  company's  track 
shall  be  of  such  width  as  to  admit  of  a  second  track  in  and  through  said  cut. 
The  Alton  company  may  use  the  material  taken  from  said  excavation. 

Alton  to  pay  cost,  including  cost  of  the  commission. 

[Signed]     J.  S.  NEVILLE,  Chairman. 

ABTHTJB  L.  FRENCH,  Commissioner. 
Springfield,  Illinois,  July  5,  1905. 


AMENDED  OBDEB  IN  THE  CABLINVILLE  CROSSING  CASE. 

The  Chicago  &  Alton  Ry.  Co. 

vs. 
The  Springfield  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co. 

It  is  ordered  that  the  time  in  the  order  heretofore  made  on  the  6th  day  of 
October,  1904,  as  provided  in  the  eighth  clause  of  said  order  shall  be  extended 
to  January  1,  1906. 

It  is  further  ordered  that  the  subway,  as  provided  in  said  order,  may  be 
moved  north  from  the  present  proposed  location  to  any  point  between  the 


77 

proposed  location  and  Lotz  highway  crossing  which  is  the  first  highway 
crossing  north,  by  the  said  Springfield  &  St.  Louis  Railway  Company.  The 
order  is  in  every  other  respect  to  remain  as  originally  entered. 

[Signed]     J.  S.  NEVILLE,  Chairman. 

ARTHUR  L.  FRENCH,  Commissioner. 
Springfield,  Illinois,  July  5,  1905. 


Vandalia  R.  R.  Co. 

vs. 
Chicago,  Bloomington  &  Decatur  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  objecting  to  a  crossing  at  grade  and  requesting  the  commision  to 
prescribe  the  place  where  and  the  manner  in  which  a  crossing  shall  be  made 
at  Maroa. 

July  19,  1905.  Petition  filed  and  respondent  company  served  with  a  copy 
of  petition. 

July  29,  1905.  Place  of  the  proposed  crossing  viewed  by  the  commission. 
Crossing  made  by  agreement. 


Marion  &  Harrisburg  Railway  Company, 
vs. 

Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company, 

Chicago  &  Eastern  Illinois  Railroad  Company  and 

The  Chicago,  Paducah  &  Memphis  R.  R.  Co. 

Petition  to  cross  at  grade  near  Marion,  Illinois,  and  requesting  the  commis- 
sion to  decide  the  place  and  manner  of  crossing. 

August  30,  1905.    Petition  filed  and  respondent  companies  served  with  copy 
of  petition. 

Nov.  21,  1905.     Case  heard  and  taken  under  advisement. 
Case  still  pending. 


Cleveland,  Cincinnati,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis  Railway  Co. 

vs. 
St.  Louis  &  Northeastern  Railway  Co. 

Petition  objecting  to  a  grade  crossing  at  Qillespie  and  requesting  the  commis- 
sion to  decide  the  place  where  and  the  manner  of  crossing. 

August  23,  1905.    Petition  filed  and  respondent  company  served  with  copy 
of  petition. 

Sept.  5,  1905.     Place  of  proposed  crossing  viewed  by  commission. 
Case  still  pending. 

BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 


Sandoval  Coal  and  Mining  Company,  Petitioner, 

vs. 
The  Baltimore  &  Ohio  S.  W.  R.  R.  Co.,  Respondent. 

Complaint  for  overcharge  in  switching  coal. 

ORDER  OF  THE  COMMISSION. 

This  complaint  was  filed  by  the  petitioner,  the  Sandoval  Coal  and  Mining 
Company,  against  the  Baltimore  &  Ohio  Southwestern  Railroad  Company,  for 
charging  its  schedule  rate  of  25  cents  a  ton  for  switching  coal  from  their 


78 

, mine  to  •  the  Sandoval  Zinc  Cdni'pany,  a  distance  of  about  2,300  feet.  The 
railroad- company  claimed  that  the  moving  of  coal  between  the  two  points 
was  not  a  switching  charge  but  was  a  direct  haul  of  less  than  two  miles, 
as  provided  for  by  the  commissioners'  schedule  and  that  they  were  allowed 
to  charge  the  schedule  rate  of  25  cents  per  ton. 

After  hearing  all  the  evidence  in  the  case,  the  commission  is  of  the  opinion 
that  the  movement  was  a  switching  charge  as  set  forth  by  Rule  No.  Twenty- 
three  (23)  which  reads  as  follows: 

"The  reasonable  maximum  rate  for  switching  loaded  cars  for  distances  not 
exceeding  three  miles,  shaft  be  $2.00  per  car.  Switching  includes  the  haul- 
ing of  loaded  cars  from  the  station  yards,  side  tracks,  elevators  or  ware- 
houses to  the  junctions  of  other  railroads  when  not  billed  from  stations  on  its 
own  road  to  said  junctions,  and  from  junctions  of  other  railroads  to  the 
stations,  side  tracks,  elevators  and  warehouses  situated  on  the  tracks  owned 
or  controlled  by  the  railroad  company  doing  said  switching;  it  is  that  transfer 
charge  ordinarily  made  for  moving  loaded  cars  for  short  distances  for  which 
no  regular  way-bill  is  made,  and  which  do  not  move  between  two  regularly 
established  stations  on  the  same  road." 

And,  we  are  therefore  of  the  opinion  that  the  charge  of  25  cents  per  ton  is 
an  unjust  discrimination  against  the  petitioner,  the  Sandoval  Coal  and 
Mining  Company. 

[Signed]    J.  S.  NEVILLE, 

Chairman. 

Springfield,  111.,  Sept.  5,  1905. 


Northern  &  Southern  Illinois  Railroad  Company. 

vs. 
St.  Louis,  Iron  Mountain  &  Southern  Railway  Company. 

Petition  to  cross  at  grade  near  Herrin,  III.,  and  requesting  the  commission  to 
decide  the  place  where  and  the  manner  of  crossing. 

Sept.  1,  1905.    Petition  filed  and  respondent  served  with  a  copy  of  the  peti- 
tion. 

Sept.  13,  1905.  Place  of  proposed  crossing  viewed  by  the  commission. 
Oct.  5,  1905.     Case  heard  and  continued  by  agreement. 
Settled  by  agreement. 


Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company, 

vs. 
St.  Louis  &  Springfield  Traction  Co.  and  St.  Louis  &  Northeastern  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  objecting  to  a  crossing  at  grade  near  Litchfteld,  III.,  and  requesting 
the  commission  to  prescribe  the  place  where  and  the  manner  in  which  a 
crossing  shall  be  made. 

Sept.  13,  1905.  Petition  filed  and  respondent  company  served  with  a  copy 
of  the  petition. 

Oct.  10,  1905.    Place  of  the  proposed  crossing  viewed  by  the  commission. 

Case  still  pending. 

•• 


• 


79 

Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  Railway  Company,     . .    , 
.         vs.      .     -  .  .•  '  ••   ;    ''- 

St.  Louis  &  Springfield  Railway  Co;  and  the  St.  Louis  &  Northeastern  Ry.  Co. 

Petition,  objecting  to  a  crossing  at  grade  near  Litchfield,  III.,  and  requesting 
the  commission  to  prescribe  the  place  where  and  the 'manner  in  which  a 
crossing  shall  be  made.  t-  ;;  Vr-'j 

Sept.  13,  1905.  Petition  filed  and  respondent  served  with  a  copy  of  the 
petition. 

Oct.  10,  1905.     Place  of  proposed .  crossing  viewed  by  the  commission. 

Case  still  pending. 


.  Cleveland,  Cincinnati,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis  Railway  Company, 

'vs. 
St.  Louis  &  Northeastern  Railway  Company. 

Petition  to  prevent  a  crossing  at  grade^  near  Litchfield,  III. 
Oct.  13,  1905.    Petition  filed  and  respondent  company  served  with  a  copy  of 
petition. 

Nov.  7,  1905.     Case  set  for  hearing. 
Case  still  pending.  , 


BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 

The  Ropkford  Belt  Railway  Company, 

vs. 
The  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company. 

Petition  for  Grade  Crossing  in  the  City  of  Rockford. 

APPEARANCES : 

HENRY  C.  WOOD  and  A.  D.  EARLY,  for  Petitioner. 
JOHN  G.  DRENNAN  and  J.  M.  DICKINSON,  for  the  Illi- 
nois Central  Railroad  Company. 

Petition  was  filed  by  the  Rockford  Belt  Railway  Company  to  cross  at  grade 
the  tracks  of  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company  at  a  point  within  the  city 
limits  of  the  city  of  Rockford,  Illinois.  Notice  was  given  to  the  defendant, 
the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company,  of  the  filing  of  the  petition  and  they 
filed  their  answer  denying  the  right  of  the  petitioner  to  cross  their  tracks  at 
grade,  and  'the  commissioners,  after  having  notified  both  parties,  viewed  the 
ground  and  set  the  case  for  hearing  at  their  office  in  Springfield,  Illinois,  on 
the  18th  day  of  July,  1905,  and  after  a  full  hearing  of  the  evidence,  the  argu- 
ment of  counsel  of  the  respective  parties,  and  after  a  second  viewing  of  the 
premises,  and  having  fully  investigated  the  facts  and  with  due  regard  to  the 
safety  of  life  and  property,  have  determined  that  the  prayer  of  the  petitioner 
for  a  grade  crossing  should  not  be  granted  and  have  decided  that  the  proper 
place  of  crossing  is  at  a  point  about  three  hundred  and  fifty  (350)  feet  east  of 
the  point  of  the  frog  connecting  the  Illinois  Central  Belt  tracks  with  its  main 
track  and  that  the  manner  in  which  said  crossing  shall  be  made  shall  be  by 
means  of  a  subway,  with  a  clearance  of  not  less  than  seventeen  (17)  feet  be- 
tween the  lower  part  of  the  bridge  of  the  Illinois  Central  tracks  and  the  top 
of  the  rails  of  the  Rockford  Belt  Railway  tracks  directly  under  said  bridge. 

It  is  therefore  ordered  and  directed  by  the  commission  that  petitioner  raise 
or  cause  to  be  raised  the  roadbed  and  tracks  of  the  said  Illinois  Central  Rail- 
road Company  at  said  place  of  crossing  as  follows:  Not  more  than  five  (5) 


feet  at  the  place  of  crossing  and  to  grade  the  same  down  in  each  direction  so 
that  the  grade  of  said  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company's  tracks  will  not  be 
more  than  a  five-tenth  grade  and  to  construct  or  cause  to  be  constructed  at 
said  crossing  a  standard  steel  bridge  with  concrete  abutments,  both  bridge 
and  abutments  to  be  of  the  best  kind  and  the  proper  size,  such  as  is  used  by 
all  first  class  railroads  in  the  State  of  Illinois  in  the  construction  of  first 
class  roads,  with  a  clearance  of  seventeen  (17)  feet.  All  of  said  work  to  be 
completed  within  one  year  from  this  date. 

It  is  further  ordered  that  the  expense  connected  with  or  in  any  way  per- 
taining to  said  crossing  and  the  structure  and  the  future  maintenance  and 
repairs  necesitated  thereby  shall  be  borne  by  the  petitioner,  its  successors  or 
assigns. 

The  respondent,  the  Ilinois  Central  Railroad  Company,  hereby  before  this 
commission  agrees  that  if  the  Rockford  Belt  Railway  Company  shall  faithfully 
and  fully  carry  out  and  perform  each  and  every  of  its  obligations,  duties 
and  conditions  in  this  order  prescribed,  that  it  will  waive  all  proceedings  on 
the  part  of  the  Rockford  Belt  Railway  Company  to  acquire  said  right  of 
crossing  under  the  eminent  domain  laws  of  this  State. 

And  the  Rockford  Belt  Railway  Company  hereby  stipulates  and  agrees  that 
it  accepts  and  agrees  to  this  order  in  every  respect. 

The  commission  hereby  reserves  to  itself,  jurisdiction  of  the  parties  and 
subject  matter  hereof  until  the  full  completion  of  the  matters  and  things  set 
forth  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  into  full  force  and  effect  the  terms  and  pro- 
visions of  this  order:  Provided,  however,  that  during  the  continuance  of  said 
work  and  for  the  period  of  one  year  said  petitioners  shall  have  the  right  to 
cross  the  main  tracks  of  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company  in  the  mode 
and  manner  now  being  used  by  it  and  at  the  compensation  now  in  force  and 
effect. 

It  is  further  ordered  that  the  costs  and  expenses  of  this  proceeding,  includ- 
ing the  expenses  of  the  commission,  shall  be  borne  by  the  petitioner. 

[Signed]     J.  S.  NEVILLE,  Chairman. 

ABTHUR  L.  FRENCH,  Commissioner. 

O.  K.    Rockford  Belt  Railway  Company  by  HENRY  C.  WOOD,  its  Attorney. 

O.  K.     J.  G.  DRENNAN,  Attorney  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company. 


Toledo,  St.  Louis  &  Western  R.  R.  Co. 

vs. 
Danville,  Urbana  &  Champaign  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  for  protection  of  a  crossing  near  Ridge  Farm,  Vermilion  co-unty, 

III.,  and  requesting  the  commission  to  inspect  the  crossing  with  a  view  to 

its  protection  by  interlocking  device. 

Oct.  80,  1905.    Petition  filed  and  respondent  company  served  with  a  copy. 

Nov.  14,  1905.     Place  of  proposed  crossing  viewed  by  the  commission. 

Dec.  5,  1905.    All  parties  interested  present  and  case  taken  under  advise- 
ment. 

Case  still  pending. 


Chicago  &  Eastern  Illinois  R.  R.  Co. 

vs. 
Chicago  Heights  Street  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  objecting  to  a  crossing  at  grade  at  16th  .St.,  Chicago  Heights.  III. 
Nov.  16,  1905.     Petition  filed  and  respondent  company  served  with  a  copy 
of  petition. 

Nov.  8,  1905.    Place  of  proposed  crossing  viewed  by  the  commission. 
Dec.  5,  1905.     Case  dismissed  on  request  of  petitioner. 


8i 

BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WABEHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 


Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co.,  a  Corporation, 

vs. 
Union  County  Traction  &  Power  Co.,  a  Corporation. 

ORDEB. 

This  cause  coming  on  to  be  heard  upon  the  petition  filed  herein  by  the  Illi- 
nois Central  Railroad  Company,  asking  that  an  order  be  entered  prescribing 
the  place  where  and  the  manner  in  which  crossing  shall  be  made  by  the 
Union  County  Traction  &  Power  Company  in  the  public  streets  of  the  city  of 
Anna,  in  the  county  Of  Union  and  State  of  Illinois,  over  the  line  of  railroad 
of  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company  in  said  city;  and  the  Union  County 
Traction  &  Power  Company  having  appeared  specially  herein  and  filed  a 
plea  to  the  jurisdiction  of  this  commission,  and  the  commission  having  con- 
sidered the  matter  upon  said  petition,  and  being  now  fully  advised  in  the 
premises,  it  is  thereupon 

Ordered,  adjudged  and  decreed  by  the  commission,  that  said  Union  County 
Traction  &  Power  Company  be,  and  it  is  hereby  ordered  and  directed  to  make 
its  crossing  of  the  right  of  way  of  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company  at 
or  near  the  point  of  crossing  shown  upon  the  blue  print  hereto  attached  by 
the  yellow  lines  upon  said  blue  print  crossing  said  right  of  way,  if  said  Illi- 
nois Central  Railroad  Company  shall  give  such  crossing  privileges  shown  on 
said  blue  print;  that  said  crossing  shall  be  an  under-crossing  and  shall  be 
constructed  at  the  sole  expense  of  the  defendant  within  six  months  from  the 
date  of  entry  of  this  order,  unless  the  Union  County  Traction  &  Power  Com- 
pany shall  apply  for  and  obtain  an  extension  of  said  time  for  constructing 
the  same  by  reason  of  the  inability  of  said  Union  County  Traction  &  Power 
Company  to  acquire  the  right  to  construct  approaches  to  said  point  of  cross- 
ing, or  for  any  other  reason  interfering  with  the  construction  of  said  crossing 
or  making  necessary  delay  therein.  In  operating  its  trains  over  said  temporary 
crossing,  defendant's  employes  shall  obey  the  signs  of  the  plaintiff's  flagman 
when  at  said  crossing. 

It  is  further  ordered,  adjudged  and  decreed  that  pending  the  construction 
of  said  under-crossing,  said  Union  County  Traction  &  Power  Company  be,  and 
it  is  hereby  given  the  right  to  cross  with  its  tracks  the  tracks  of  the  Illinois 
Central  Railroad  Company  at  grade  upon  the  public  streets  known  as  Main 
street  and  Franklin  street,  being  continuations  each  of  the  other  in  an  east- 
erly and  westerly  direction  and  together  forming  the  principal  business  street 
of  the  city  of  Anna,  the  junction  of  said  streets  being  at  the  middle  of  the 
right-of-way  of  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company,  said  crossing  being  in 
pursuance  of  an  ordinance  granted  by  the  city  of  Anna  to  said  Union  County 
Traction  &  Power  Company;  and  it  is  further  ordered  that  said  crossing  be 
made  at  its  own  expense  in  accordance  with  the  plans  of  the  Union  County 
Traction  &  Power  Company,  to  be  approved  by  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad 
Company  on  three  days'  notice,  authorized  by  said  city  of  Anna,  and  that  said 
track  when  constructed  shall  follow  the  route  shown  upon  the  blue  print 
hereto  attached  and  extending  across  the  right  of  way  of  the  Illinois  Central 
Railroad  Company  at  a  point  to  the  west  of  the  proposed  under-crossing. 
The  defendant  shall  pay  the  cost  of  this  proceeding. 

The  commission  further  reserves  jurisdiction  of  this  case  for  the  purpose  of 
entering  such  other  orders  as  may  be  necessary  or  desirable  in  the  premises. 

Dated  at  Springfield,  111.,  Nov.  7,  1905. 

J.  S.  NEVILLE,  Chairman. 

ARTHUR  L.  FRENCH,  Commissioner. 


—6  O 


82 

BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  or  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 

The  Alton  Lime  &  Cement  Company 

vs. 
The  Chicago,  Peoria  &  St.  Louis  Railway  Company. 

Complaint  for  overcharge.    Before  the  Commission  Oct.  3,  1905. 

ORDER. 

APPEARANCES '. 

J.  F.  McGiNNis,  for  Complainant. 
H.  L.  CHILD,  for  Defendant. 

This  was  a  complaint  filed  by  the  Alton  Lime  &  Cement  Company  against 
the  Chicago,  Peoria  &  St.  Louis  Railway  Company,  for  overcharges  for  switch- 
ing stone  from  their  quarry  to  the  transfer  switch  and  delivering  it  to  the 
other  railroads  in  the  city  of  Alton. 

It  was  admitted  by  the  said  railroad  company  that  the  quarry  was  within 
three  miles  of  the  transfer  switch  where  the  cars  were  delivered  to  the  other 
railroad  companies,  but  they  sought  to  defend  their  action  by  showing  that 
the  cars  now  used  were  much  larger  than  the  cars  that  were  in  use  at  the 
time  of  the  adoption  of  the  rule.  This  we  do  not  think  is  a  defense.  The 
rule  is  still  in  force  and  the  charging  of  more  than  two  dollars  ($2.00)  for  the 
service  rendered  as  shown  by  the  evidence  in  this  case,  was  a  clear  violation 
of  Rule  No.  23  and  in  our  opinion  it  was  an  overcharge  which  they  had  no 
authority  to  make. 

It  is  therefore  ordered  by  the  commission  that  the  Chicago,  Peoria  &  St. 
Louis  Railway  Company,  by  charging  and  collecting  from  the  complainant 
more  than  two  dollars  ($2.00)  a  car  for  switching  cars  from  their  quarry  to 
the  transfer  switch  and  delivering  to  other  railroad  companies,  which  is  only 
about  half  a  mile,  have  made  an  unjust  charge  and  are  guilty  of  extortion. 

Springfield,  111.,  Nov.  11,  1905. 

[Signed]    J.    S.    NEVILLE,   Chairman. 

ARTHUR  L.  FRENCH,  Commissioner. 


Michigan  Central  Railroad  Company 

vs. 
Chicago  &  Southern  Traction  Company. 

Petition  filed  objecting  to  the  place  and  manner  of  crossing  at  West  End 
avenue,  Chicago  Heights,  III.,  and  requesting  the  commission  to  prescribe 
the  place  where  and  the  manner  in  which  a  crossing  shall  be  made. 
Dec.  5,  1905.    Petition  filed  and  respondent  served  with  a  copy  of  petition. 
Jan.  4,  1906.    Case  set  for  hearing  in  Chicago.     Case  continued  by  aggree- 

ment  until  Jan.  25,  1906. 
Case  still  pending. 

Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company  , 

vs. 
Chicago,  Bloomington  &  Decatur  Railway  Company. 

Petition  objecting  to  the  place  and  the  manner  of  a  crossing  at  Clinton,  III., 
and  requesting  the  commission  to  prescribe  the  place  where  and  the  manner 
in  which  crossing  shall  be  made. 
Feb.  3,  1906.     Petition  filed  and  respondent  company  served  with  copy  of 

petition. 


83 

• 

Bolivia  Farmers'  Grain  Company, 

vs. 
The  Cincinnati,  Hamilton  &  Dayton  Railway  Company. 

Petition  for  track  connection. 
OBDEB. 

Petition  was  filed  in  the  above  entitled  cause  before  this  commission  on 
Nov.  23,  1905,  and  the  site  of  the  proposed  side  track  was  viewed  by  the  com- 
mission Dec.  12,  1905. 

Case  set  for  hearing  at  the  office  of  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commis- 
sion, Springfield,  111.,  Tuesday,  Jan.  2,  1906  at  10:00  o'clock  a.  m. 

Tuesday  Jan.  2,  1906.    Case  coming  on  to  be  heard: 

APPEARANCES : 

CHAS.  A.  PRATER,  for  Petitioners. 
JAMES  M.  GRAHAM,  for  Respondents. 

The  respondents  in  the  case  asked  for  a  postponement  which  was  agreed 
to  by  the  complainant,  and  the  case  continued  to  Tuesday,  Jan.  16,  1906. 

Tuesday,  Jan.  16,  1906.  Case  again  coming  on  to  be  heard.  Complainants 
being  represented  by  Chas.  A.  Prater,  respondent  company  not  being  repre- 
sented. 

The  commission  now  being  fully  advised  and  the  facts  showing  that  the 
Bolivia  Farmers'  Grain  Company  is  a  corporation  doing  business  as  an  eleva- 
tor company,  buying,  receiving,  storing,  selling  and  shipping  grain  and  are 
entitled  under  the  statutes  of  the  State  of  Illinois  to  be  permitted  to  connect 
and  maintain  a  connection  with  the  track  of  the  Cincinnati,  Hamilton  & 
Dayton  Railway  at  or  near  its  elevator  at  Bolivia; 

It  is  therefore  ordered  by  the  commission,  that  the  Bolivia  Farmers'  Grain 
Company  be  permitted  to  make  connections  with  the  track  of  the  Cincinnati, 
Hamilton  &  Dayton  Railway  Company  at  a  point  on  said  railway  approxi- 
mately three  hundred  and  sixty  (360)  feet  east  of  the  public  highway  which 
crosses  the  tracks  of  the  Cincinnati,  Hamilton  &  Dayton  Railway  Company 
just  west  of  its  depot  at  Bolivia  with  a  track  to  be  built  by  the  said  Bolivia 
Farmer's  Grain  Company  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  and  shipping  grain  and 
coal  and  other  materials  as  provided  by  the  constitution  and  statutes  of  the 
State  of  Illinois,  and  that  in  making  said  connection,  that  they  shall  do  the 
same  in  a  way  that  will  not  unnecessarily  interfere  with  the  tracks  and 
traffic  of  the  said  Cincinnati,  Hamilton  &  Dayton  Railway  Company. 

That  they  shall  give  reasonable  notice  to  the  said  Cincinnati,  Hamilton  & 
Dayton  Railway  Company  of  their  intention  so  to  do. 

[Signed]     J.    S.    NEVILLE,    Chairman. 

A.    L.    FRENCH,    Commissioner. 

Springfield,  111.,  Jan.  16,  1906. 


Chicago  &  Southern  Traction  Company,  Complainant. 

vs. 

Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company,  Defendant. 

Petition  for  crossing. 

ORDER. 

This  case  coming  on  to  be  heard  upon  the  petition  of  complainant  and  the 
answer  of  the  defendant,  the  commission  finds  both  complainant  and  de- 
fendant are  commercial  railroads;  that  it  has  jurisdiction  of  the  subject  mat- 
ter of  this  case  and  of  the  parties  thereto.  The  commission  having  viewed 
the  ground  where  the  proposed  crossing  is  desired;  having  given  all  parties 
interested  an  opportunity  to  be  heard;  after  full  investigation,  and  with  due 
regard  to  safety  of  life  and  property,  finds  that  a  grade  crossing  such  as  is 


84 

« 

desired  by  the  petitioner  will  unnecessarily  impede  and  endanger  the  business 
and  travel  upon  both  of  said  railroads  where  petitioner  desires  to  cross;  and, 
therefore,  further  finds  that  said  crossing  should  be  by  means  of  a  subway  at 
or  near  157th  street  in  the  city  of  Harvey,  Cook  county,  Illinois. 

It  is  therefore  ordered  and  adjudged  by  this  commission,  that  the  place  of 
said  proposed  crossing  shall  be  at  or  near  157th  street  in  the  city  of  Harvey; 
and  the  manner  in  which  said  crossing  shall  be  made  shall  be  by  means  of  a 
subway  as  follows: 

Petitioner,  Chicago  &  Southern  Traction  Company  shall  raise  or  cause  to  be 
raised,  at  its  own  expense,  at  the  place  of  said  proposed  crossing,  without 
materially  interfering  with  the  traffic  thereon,  the  roadbed  and  railroad  tracks 
of  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company  not  to  exceed  four  and  eight-tenths 
feet  where  the  tracks  of  the  Chicago  &  Southern  Traction  Company  shall 
cross  under  the  tracks  of  the  said  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company  at  or 
near  157th  street  in  said  city  of  Harvey.  In  raising  the  tracks  and  roadbed 
of  the  defendant  company,  the  grade  shall  run  level  from  said  157th  street 
south  until  it  intersects  the  present  grade  of  the  tracks  of  the  defendant  com- 
pany, and  the  two  grades  shall  be  connected  by  an  easy  vertical  curve.  From 
the  point  of  the  proposed  crossing  north  the  grade  shall  descend  on  a  three- 
tenths  per  cent  grade  until  it  intersects  the  present  grade  of  the  roadbed  and 
tracks  of  the  defendant  company  at  or  near  155th  street  in  said  city  of  Har- 
vey, which  two  latter  grades  shall  also  be  connected  by  an  easy  vertical  curve. 

The  petitioner,  Chicago  &  Southern  Traction  Company,  shall  put  in  said 
subway  of  said  proposed  crossing  at  its  maximum  depth  the  entire  width  of 
the  tracks  of  said  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company  as  they  are  now  located; 
and  if  the  said  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company  shall  at  any  time  hereafter 
desire  to  lay  additional  tracks  over  and  across  said  subway  on  its  said  lands, 
the  Chicago  &  Southern  Traction  Company,  or  its  successors,  shall  extend 
said  subway  at  its  maximum  depth  such  distance  as  shall  be  necessary  there- 
for, so  that  in  the  end,  if  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company  desires  so  to 
do,  it  may  have  the  use  of  the  entire  width  of  its  right  of  way  and  lands  at 
said  proposed  crossing  without  interference  on  the  part  of  said  Chicago  & 
Southern  Traction  Company,  or  its  successors.  The  walls  and  abutments  of 
said  subway  shall  in  the  first  instance  be  built  to  extend  the  full  width  of  the 
tracks  as  now  located,  and  shall  be  extended  from  time  to  time  as  said  Illi- 
nois Central  Railroad  Company  shall  desire  to  lay  additional  tracks  thereon, 
all  of  which  work  in  and  about  the  construction  of  said  subway  and  the  bridge 
thereon,  and  the  maintenance  and  repair  thereof,  shall  be  done  or  caused  to 
be  done  at  the  expense  of  the  Chicago  &  Southern  Traction  Company  or  its 
successors. 

All  the  plans  for  the  raising  of  said  tracks  of  the  defendant  company  and 
the  building  of  said  bridge,  walls,  abutments  and  appurtenances  thereto,  and 
all  work  now  or  hereafter  done  in  connection  with  said  crossing,  so  far  as  it 
affects  the  defendant  company,  shall  be  submitted  to  and  approved  by  the 
defendant  company,  subject  to  the  approval  of  this  commission,  or  its  duly 
authorized  engineer  or  representative  and  if  the  parties  fail  to  agree,  then  to 
be  decided  by  the  commission. 

It  is  further  ordered  and  adjudged  by  this  commission  that  the  parties  to 
this  proceeding  may  by  agreement  cause  said  crossing  to  be  made  at  any  other 
point  in  the  vicinity  of  Harvey,  Illinois,  that  may  be  agreeable  to  the  parties 
hereto,  provided,  that  the  crossing  so  agreed  upon  shall  be  either  by  means 
of  a  subway  or  viaduct,  to  the  end  that  there  shall  be  a  separation  of  the 
grades  of  said  railroads  wherever  said  crossing  shall  be  made. 

This  commission  is  advised  that  the  defendant  company  is  willing  to  per- 
mit the  complainant  to  cross  its  said  tracks  at  the  place  desired  temporarily 
and  until  Dec.  31,  1906,  in  accordance  with  a  contract  which  has  been  sub- 
mitted to  this  commission  for  inspection.  It  is  therefore  further  ordered  and 
adjudged  by  this  commission,  that  the  complainant  shall  protect  said  tempo- 
rary crossing  by  interlocking  or  other  safety  appliance  to  be  approved  by 
this  commission,  to  the  end  that 'it  shall  not  be  necessary  for  the  defendant 
company  to  cause  its  trains  to  be  stopped  in  approaching  said  crossings,  and 
if  for  any  reason  the  petitioners  are  unable  to  complete  the  said  subway  by 
the  31st  day  of  December,  1906,  then  they  may  apply  for  an  extension  of  time 
and  if  good  cause  is  shown,  the  commission  may  extend  the  time. 


It  is  further  ordered  and  adjudged  by  this  commission,  that  the  petitioner, 
Chicago  &  Southern  Traction  Company,  shall  bear  all  costs  and  incidental  ex- 
penses incurred  in  the  investigation  thereof  by  the  Board  of  Railroad  and 
Warehouse  Commissioners  of  the  State  of  Illinois  in  accordance  with  the 
statutes  in  such  cases  made  and  provided. 

[Signed]     J.    S.    NEVILLE,   Chairman. 

A.    L.    FRENCH,    Commissioner. 
Springfield,  111.,  Jan.  18,  1906. 


BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 


The  Wabash  R.  R.  Co. 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  Southwestern  R.  R.  Co. 

Chicago  &  Alton  Ry.  Co. 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co. 

Chicago,  Peoria  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co.  of  111. 

Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  Ry.  Co. 

Toledo,  [St.  Louis  &  Western  R.  R.  Co. 

Chicago  &  Eastern  Illinois  R.  R.  Co. 

Cleveland,  Cincinnati,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co. 

Chicago,  Rock  Island  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  for  Modification  of  Rule  28. 

Petition  filed  Oct.  27,  1905,  asking  for  modification  of  Rule  23  to  read  "ten 
cents  per  ton  with  a  minimum  charge  of  $2.00  per  car  for  switching  loaded 
cars  for  a  distance  of  not  to  exceed  three  miles." 

Prayer  of  petitioners  granted  by  order  of  the  commission  of  date  June  5th, 
1906,  as  evidenced  by  Rule  23  in  Classification  No.  10. 


Charles  R.  Price  Company, 

vs. 
Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. 

Petition  Alleging  Discrimination. 

Petition  filed  Dec.  26th,  1905,  alleging  discrimination.  Case  set  for  hearing 
before  the  commission  in  Chicago,  Jan.  4th,  1906.  Continued  by  agreement 
to  Jan.  25',  1906. 

Settled  by  agreement. 


Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 

vs. 

St.  Louis  &  Northeastern  Ry.  Co. 
Petition  Objecting  to  Grade  Crossing. 

Petition  filed  Jan.  20,  1906,  objecting  to  grade  crossing  at  Fifteenth  street, 
in  East  St.  Louis. 

Case  set  for  hearing  before  the  commission  Aug.  7th,  1906. 
Case  postponed  without  date.     Case  still  pending. 


86 

Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. 

vs. 

Chicago,  Bloomington  &  Decatur  Ry.  Co. 
Petition  Objecting  to  Grade  Crossing. 

Petition  filed  Feb.  3rd,  1906,  objecting  to  grade  crossing  at  Clinton,  Illinois. 
Case  still  pending. 


Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. 

vs. 
Aurora,  Elgin  &  Chicago  Ry.  Co.        . 

Petition  Objecting  to  Grade  Crossing. 

Petition  filed  Feb.  9th,  1906,  objecting  to  grade  crossing  at  Hillside,  Cook 
county. 

Case  still  pending. 


Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. 

vs. 
Herrin  &  Carterville  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  Objecting  to  Grade  Crossing. 

Petition  filed  Feb.  16th,  1906,  objecting  to  grade  crossing  near  Herrin,  111. 
Case  set  for  hearing  before  the  commission  April  18th,  1906. 
Continued  to  April  21st,  1906. 
Settled  by  agreement  by  parties  interested. 


Alton  Line  &  Cement  Co. 

vs. 
Chicago,  Peoria  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co. 

and 

Mississippi  Valley  Coal  Co. 

vs. 
C.,  P.  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  Complaining  of  Excessive  Switching  Charges. 

Petition  filed  Nov.  20th,  1905,  complaining  of  excessive  switching  charges. 
Case  set  for  hearing  before  the  commission  Dec.  5th,  1905. 
Continued  without  date. 
Case  still  pending. 


8; 

BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 


Michigan  Central  Railroad  Company  •  ••     •  •    j 

vs.  :•{••:':•.• 

Chicago  &  Southern  Traction  Compa&y,-  •  '.'  »    /  , 

Petition  re-crossing.  ^    ^  jt   .  ;»•    ;,    ^,  ; 

This  matter  coming  on  before  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse1  Comrirfsiib a' o2 
the  State  of  Illinois  upon  the  petition  filed  herein  by  the  Michigan  Central 
Railroad  Company  for  an  order  designating  the  manner  and  place  of  crossing 
of  its  tracks  by  the  defendant,  the  Chicago  &  Southern  Traction  Company,  at 
or  near  West  End  avenue,  in  the  city  of  Chicago  Heights,  county  of  Cook,  and 
State  of  Illinois,  and  upon  the  answer  of  the  defendant,  the  Chicago  &  South- 
ern Traction  Company,  filed  herein; 

And  the  commission  having  jurisdiction  of  the  subject  matter  of  the 
parties  hereto  and  having  heard  the  evidence  and  arguments  of  counsel, 
hereby  order  that  the  Chicago  &  Southern  Traction  Company  shall  cross  the 
tracks  of  the  Michigan  Central  Railroad  Company  at  or  near  West  End 
avenue  by  means  of  an  undercrossing,  the  clearance  of  which  shall  be  suffi- 
cient to  be  safe  for  all  parties  connected  with  either  of  said  companies,  and 
that  the  said  Chicago  &  Southern  Traction  Company  shall  construct  said 
undercrossing  at  its  own  expense,  such  as  is  used  by  all  first  class  railroads 
for  such  purposes,  and  that  said  undercrossing  is  to  be  completed  within  one 
year  from  the  first  day  of  May,  1906,  and  that  from  now  until  the  said  first 
day  of  May,  1907,  it  is  ordered  that  the  Michigan  Central  Railroad  Company 
shall  allow  the  said  Chicago  &  Southern  Traction  Company  to  cross  its  said 
tracks  at  grade  and  said  Chicago  &  Southern  Traction  Company  shall  con- 
struct and  maintain  a  first  class  de-rail  at  said  crossing  while  the  said  grade 
crossing  is  in  use,  and  that  at  the  expiration  of  said  time,  to-wit,  the  first 
day  of  May,  1907,  said  Chicago  &  Southern  Traction  Company  shall  remove 
said  grade  crossing  and  de-rail  and  thereafter  shall  cross  said  tracks  by  means 
of  an  undercrossing. 

It  is  further  ordered  that  the  parties  hereto  may  agree  as  to  how  said 
undercrossing  shall  be  made,  provided  always  that  the  same  is  to  be  com- 
pleted and  in  operation  as  above  set  forth,  by  the  first  day  of  May,  1907. 

Provided,  further,  that  if  for  any  good  reason  the  said  Chicago  &  Southern 
Traction  Company  are  unable  to  fully  complete  said  work  by  the  first  of 
May,  1907,  that  they  have  the  right,  before  that  time,  to  apply  to  this  com- 
mission for  an  extension  of  time  in  which  to  complete  said  crossing.  It  being 
the  intention  of  this  order  that  the  Illinois  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commis- 
sion shall  retain  jurisdiction  herein  of  the  subject  matter  and  the  parties  to 
this  proceeding  until  said  undercrossing  is  fully  completed. 

It  is  further  ordered,  that  the  said  Chicago  &  Southern  Traction  Company 
shall  pay  the  costs  of  this  proceeding,  including  the  expenses  of  the  com- 
mission. 

[Signed]     J.  S.  NEVILLE,  Chairman. 

ARTHUR  L.  FRENCH,  Commissioner. 

Springfield,  111.,  March  14,  1906. 


Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Company,  Petitioner, 

vs. 
Baltimore  &  Ohio  Southwestern  Railroad  Company. 

Protection  of  Crossing  at  Enfield,  Illinois. 

ORDER  OF  THE  COMMISSION. 

An'd  now.  on  the  18th  day  of  March,  A.  D.  1906,  comes  the  Louisville  & 
Nashville  Railroad  Company,  petitioner,  in  the  above  entitled  case,  and  files 
its  petition  for  the  protection  of  grade  crossing  at  Enfield,  White  county,  111., 
against  the  respondent,  the  Baltimore  &  Ohio  Southwestern  Railroad  Com- 
pany, and  notice  is  issued  by  said  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  to 
said  Baltimore  &  Ohio  Southwestern  Railroad  Company,  respondent,  notifying 
it  of  the  filing  of  such  petition,  and  it  is  ordered  by  said  commission  that  the 
hearing  of  said  petition  be  set  for  Tuesday,  April  10th,  A.  D.  1906. 

And  now,  on  this  10th  day  of  April,  A..  D.  1906,  comes  the  Louisville  & 
Nashville  Railroad  Company,  petitioner,  by  its  attorney,  J.  M.  Hamill,  and  the 
Baltimore  &  Ohio  Southwestern  Railroad  Company,  respondent,  by  its  attor- 
ney, W.  L.  Shutt,  and  the  petition  heretofore  filed  by  said  Louisville  &  Nash- 
ville Railroad  Company,  petitioner,  against  said  Baltimore  &  Ohio  South- 
western Railroad  Company,  respondent,  comes  on  for  final  hearing  and  deter- 
mination upon  the  petition  of  the  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Company 
heretofore  filed  before  said  commission,  and  the  commission  having,  as  re- 
quired by  the  statutes,  gone  upon  the  premises  and  personally  viewed  said 
crossing,  and  having  heard  all  the  evidence  and  statements  introduced  both 
by  petitioner  and  respondent,  and  the  statement  of  the  respective  superin- 
tendents of  petitioner  and  respondent,  and  the  arguments  of  counsel,  and  the 
commission  being  fully  advised  in  the  premises,  doth  find  that  the  public 
safety  and  good  requires  that  the  grade  crossing  at  Enfield,  White  county  Illi- 
nois, where  the  Baltimore  &  Ohio  Southwestern  Railroad  crosses  the  main 
track  of  the  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad,  be  protected  by  an  interlocking 
system.  And  the  commission  being  now  fully  advised  in  the  premises,  it  is 
thereupon  ordered  that  the  petitioner,  the  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad 
Company,  and  the  respondent,  the  Baltimore  &  Ohio  Southwestern  Railroad 
Company,  forthwith  proceed  to  protect  said  crossing  by  the  installation  of  a 
first  class  interlocking  system,  to  be  built  substantially  as  indicated  on  plan 
hereto  attached  and  prayed  to  be  taken  and  considered  as  a  part  hereof, 
marked  Exhibit  "A"  hereto. 

It  is  further  ordered  that  the  interlocking  device  of  said  interlocking 
system  shall  be  located  in  an  extension  or  addition  to  the  present  depot 
building  of  the  Baltimore  &  Ohio  Southwestern  Railroad  Company  as  now 
situated  along  its  tracks  at  Enfield,  White  county,  Illinois,  said  extension  or 
addition  to  be  so  constructed  as  to  give  an  unobstructed  view  of  the  tracks 
in  all  directions  from  the  crossing  to  the  operator  or  towerman  operating 
the  levers  of  said  device.  The  locking  in  the  interlocking  device  may  be  so 
arranged  that  it  shall  be  possible  to  clear  the  main  track  signals  of  the 
Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.  for  trains  in  both  directions.  All  plans  for 
said  interlocking  system  shall  be  submitted  to  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse 
Commission  in  the  usual  form  for  final  approval  before  the  work  of  con- 
struction shall  begin. 

It  is  further  ordered  that  said  interlocking  system  shall  be  maintained  and 
operated  by  the  Baltimore  &  Ohio  [Southwestern  Railroad  Company. 

Said  Baltimore  &  Ohio  Southwestern  Railroad  Company  shall  furnish  a 
day  attendant,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  operate  said  interlocking  device,  and 
before  leaving  his  duties  for  the  day  he  shall  set  up  the  route  for  the  night 
trains  of  the  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Company.  The  Railroad  and 
Warehouse  Commission,  however,  reserves  to  itself  the  right  to  revoke  the 
order  relating  to  the  location  of  the  interlocking  device,  the  manner  of  its 
operation  and  division  of  expenses  of  maintenance  and  operating  and  enter 
a  new  order,  should  they  consider  it  expedient  to  do  so. 


89 

It  is  further  ordered  that  the  cost  of  installation  of  and  maintenance  of 
said  interlocking  system  shall  be  borne  equally  between  the  parties  hereto; 
that  the  petitioner,  the  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Company,  shall  pay 
as  expense  of  operation  of  said  interlocking  system  the  sum  of  fifteen 
($15.00)  dollars  per  month  during  each  and  every  month  that  said  system  is 
maintained  and  operated,  and  that  the  balance  of  the  expense  of  maintenance 
and  operation  shall  be  borne  by  the  respondent,  the  Baltimore  &  Ohio  South- 
western Railroad  Company. 

Dated  this  20th  day  of  April,  A.  D.  1906. 

[Signed]     J.    S.    NEVILLE,    Chairman. 

A.    L.    FRENCH,    Commissioner. 


Venice  Terminal  R.  R.  Co. 

vs. 
Danville  &  Edwardsville  Terminal  R.  R.  Co. 

Petition  Objecting  to  Place  and  Mode  of  Crossing. 

Petition  filed  March  22,  1906,  objecting  to  place  and  mode  of  crossing  in 
the  city  of  Venice,  111. 

Hearing  set  for  May  8,  1906.  Continued  by  agreement  of  both  parties  in 
interest  without  date. 

Settled  by  agreement  of  both  parties. 


Geo.  W.  McCabe,  President  Board  of  Trustees  of  the  Village  of  Chatsworth, 

vs. 
The  Toledo,  Peoria  &  Western  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  Complaining  of  Failure  to  Switch  Cars. 

Petition  filed  April  2,  1906,  complaint  that  the  Toledo,  Peoria  &  Western 
Ry.  Co.  refuse  to  switch  cars  placed  on  "Y"  by  the  Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. 
Case  set  for  hearing  before  the  commission  April  18,  190<5. 
Case  heard  May  8,  1906.     Statement  of  facts  admitted  by  both  parties. 
Defendant  to  file  brief. 
Case  still  pending. 


The  Farmers'  Elevator  Co.  of  Lowder 

vs. 
The  Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  Complaining  of  Refusal  to  Furnish  Cars. 

Petition  filed  April  6,  1906,  complaining  that  said  company  refuse  to  fur- 
nish cars  for  shipment  of  grain. 

Case  heard  before  the  commission  April  18,  1906. 
Case  continued  without  date. 


90 

A.  J.  Weber,  Petitioner, 

vs. 
Illinois   Central   Railroad   Company,   Respondent. 

APPEABANCES: 

D.  T.  UPCHUECH,  for  Petitioner. 
JOHN  G.   DBENNAN,  for  Respondent. 

Overcharge  for  Switching. 

The  petition  in  this  case  was  filed  April  23,  1906,  and  alleges  that  the  pe- 
titioner is  the  owner  and  proprietor  of  a  steam  flour  mill  located  on  a  side- 
track of  the  respondent  at  Galatia,  111.;  that  between  Jan.  6,  1905,  and 
March  19,  1906,  the  petitioner  was  compelled  to  pay  to  the  respondent  for 
switching  twelve  carloads  of  coal  from  the  mine  of  the  Galatia  Coal  Com- 
pany to  the  petitioner's  mill,  a  distance  of  less  than  five  hundred  yards,  a 
sum  in  excess  of  $2.00  per  car,  and  it  is  claimed  that  the  service  rendered 
was  a  switching  service  within  the  meaning  of  Rule  23,  and  that  because  of 
such  charge  the  respondent  is  guilty  of  extortion. 

The  answer  of  the  respondent  was  filed  on  April  25,  1906,  and  consists  of  a 
general  denial  of  the  charges  in  the  petition. 

The  case  came  on  for  hearing  before  the  commission  at  its  office  in  Spring- 
field on  the  15th  day  of  May,  1906.  After  hearing  the  evidence  in  the  case 
and  the  arguments  of  counsel,  the  case  was  taken  under  advisement  and  leave 
was  granted  to  the  parties  to  file  written  briefs.  No  opinion  was  filed  during 
the  lifetime  of  the  late  chairman  of  the  commission,  Honorable  James  S. 
Neville,  and  because  of  a  change  in  the  personnel  of  the  commission  the  case 
was  re-argued  at  the  regular  December  1906  meeting  and  submitted  on  the 
evidence  taken  at  the  former  hearing. 

The  undisputed  facts  in  the  case  are  as  follows:  The  petitioner  owns  and 
operates  a  flour  mill  adjacent  to  the  respondent's  sidetracks  at  Galatia,  111. 
About  five  hundred  yards  west  of  this  flour  mill  and  adjacent  to  the  tracks 
of  the  respondent  is  located  the  coal  mine  of  the  Galatia  Coal  Company. 
During  the  period  of  about  one  year  prior  to  the  filing  of  the  petition  in  this 
case  the  petitioner  purchased  from  the  Galatia  Coal  Company  twelve  carloads 
of  coal  for  use  at  his  flour  mill.  For  furnishing  the  cars  and  transporting 
this  coal  from  the  coal  mine  to  the  flour  mill  the  respondent  charged  the 
petitioner  for  one  of  the  cars  $5.00,  for  five  of  the  cars  $7.00,  and  for  six  of 
the  cars  $7.50  each.  There  is  no  dispute  between  the  parties  as  to  the  facts, 
but  it  is  claimed  by  the  respondent  that  this  movement  of  these  cars  was  not 
a  switching  movement  within  the  meaning  of  Rule  23,  but  was  in  fact  a 
"transportation"  or  "haul"  and  that  it  was  entitled  to  charge  for  such 
service  the  maximum  allowed  by  the  "Schedule  of  Maximum  Freight  Rates" 
then  in  force,  which  was  twenty-five  cents  per  ton  for  hauling  coal  two  miles 
or  less. 

Rule  23,  at  the  time  when  these  transactions  occurred,  read  as  follows: 

"The  reasonable  maximum  rate  for  switching  loaded  cars  for  distances  not 
exceeding  three  miles  shall  be  $2.00  per  car.  Switching  includes  the  hauling 
of  loaded  cars  from  the  station  yards,  side-tracks,  elevators  or  warehouses  to 
the  junction  of  other  railroads  when  not  billed  from  stations  on  its  own  road 
to  said  junctions  and  from  junctions  of  other  railroads  to  the  stations,  side- 
tracks, elevators  and  warehouses  situated  on  the  tracks  owned  or  controlled 
by  the  railroad  company  doing  the  switching;  it  is  that  transfer  charge 
ordinarily  made  for  moving  loaded  cars  for  short  distances  for  which  no 
regular  way-bill  is  made  and  which  do  not  move  between  two  regularly 
established  stations  on  the  same  road." 

The  evidence  discloses  that  the  mine  of  the  Galatia  Coal  Company  was  not 
located  at  any  regularly  established  station  and  in  the  movement  of  these 
cars  no  regular  way-bills  were  made.  The  bills  presented  by  the  respondent 
for  this  service  were  the  ordinary  switching  bills. 


A  number  of  cases,  where  the  facts  appear  to  be  similar  to  those  disclosed 
by  the  evidence  in  this  case,  have  heretofore  been  passed  upon  by  the  com- 
mission, and  it  has  been  held  that  the  service  in  question  was  a  "switching 
service"  within  Rule  23  above  quoted. 

It  is  however,  contended  by  respondent,  that  Rule  23  has  no  application 
whatever  to  this  service;  that  such  rule  applies  only  in  cases  where  there 
necessarily  preceded  or  succeeded  such  service  the  payment  of  freight  for 
transportation  over  some  line  of  railway,  and  the  case  of  Dixon  vs.  Central 
of  Georgia  Railway  Company,  110  Ga.  173,  is,  among  others,  cited  as  an 
authority  on  this  point.  In  that  case  the  rule  of  the  Railroad  Commission 
did  not  in  any  way  attempt  to  define  what  is  meant  by  a  "switching"  charge, 
and  the  Court  was,  of  course,  at  liberty  to  hear  testimony  as  to  the  meaning 
of  that  term  as  it  was  used  in  reference  to  railroad  transportation.  From  a 
consideration  of  such  evidence  the  Court  found  that  a  "switching"  service 
applied  only  in  cases  where  there  necessarily  preceded  or  succeeded  such 
service  the  payment  of  freight  for  a  regular  transportation  service. 

Rule  23  of  this  commission,  however,  defines  what  is  meant  by  a  "switch- 
ing" charge.  Among  other  things  it  is  "that  transfer  charge  ordinarily  made 
for  moving  loaded  cars  for  short  distances  for  which  no  regular  way-bill  is 
made  and  which  do  not  move  between  two  regularly  established  stations  on 
the  same  road."  The  evidence  in  this  case  brings  it  squarely  within  this 
definition  of  "switching." 

This  commission,  by  virtue  of  the  provisions  of  the  statute,  has  authority 
to  establish  reasonable  maximum  rates  for  switching  and  for  the  transporta- 
tion of  freight.  The  rules  establishing  such  rates,  when  adopted,  are  bind- 
ing, not  only  upon  the  railroad  companies,  but  upon  their  patrons  and  are 
equally  binding  upon  this  commission  until  such  time  as  they  are  altered  or 
amended.  Such  being  the  case,  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  disregard  Rule  23 
nor  the  definition  of  switching  as  therein  contained. 

But  it  is  further  insisted  by  respondent  that  by  making  two  tariffs  for  a 
haul  of  two  miles  or  under,  one  for  "hauling"  freight  and  the  other  for 
"switching,"  the  commission  necessarily  recognizes  that  for  such  distance 
there  may  be  two  classes  of  service  for  which  a  different  charge  may  be  made. 

This  is  undoubtedly  true.  There  may  be  a  regular  transportation  or  haul 
for  a  distance  of  two  miles  or  under  when  such  haul  is  between  two  regularly 
established  stations,  and  where  a  regular  way-bill  is  made.  It  is  probably 
true  that  there  are  few  instances  where  the  schedule  of  maximum  freight 
rates  would  apply  for  such  short  distances,  but  where  it  does  apply  the.  rate 
allowed  by  the  regular  distance  tariff  may  be  charged. 

On  the  whole  case  we  are  of  opinion  that  the  service  rendered  was  clearly 
within  Rule  23  and,  therefore,  was  a  switching  movement. 

Dated  at  Springfield,  111.,  this  4th  day  of  December,  A.  D.  1906. 

[Signed]     ARTHUR  L.  FRENCH,  Commissioner. 
W.   H.   BOYS,   Commissioner. 


BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 


Elgin,  Joliet  and  Eastern  Railway  Company, 

vs. 
Chicago  and  Southern  Traction  Company. 

Petition  Re-crossing. 

This  matter  coming  on  before  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission 
of  the  State  of  Illinois  upon  petition  filed  herein  by  the  Elgin,  Joliet  and 
Eastern  Railway  Company  for  an  order  designating  the  manner  and  place 
of  crossing  of  its  tracks  by  the  defendant,  the  Chicago  and  Southern  Traction 


92 

Company,  at  or  near  West  End  avenue  in  the  city  of  Chicago  Heights,  county 
of  Cook,  and  State  of  Illinois;  and  upon  the  answer  of  the  defendant,  the 
Chicago  and  Southern  Traction  Company  filed  herein; 

And  the  commission  having  jurisdiction  of  the  subject  matter  and  of 
the  parties  hereto  and  having  heard  the  evidence  and  arguments  of  counsel, 
hereby  order  that  the  Chicago  and  Southern  Traction  Company  shall  cross 
the  tracks  of  the  Elgin,  Joliet  and  Eastern  Railway  Company  at  or  near 
West  End  avenue,  by  means  of  an  under-crossing,  the  clearance  of  which 
shall  be  sufficient  to  be  safe  for  all  parties  connected  with  either  of  said 
companies,  and  that  the  said  Chicago  and  Southern  Traction  Company  shall 
construct  said  under-crossing  at  its  own  expense,  such  as  is  used  by  all  first- 
class  railroads  for  such  purposes  and  that  said  under-crossing  is  to  be  com- 
pleted within  one  year  from  the  first  day  of  May,  1906,  and  that  from  now 
until  the  said  first  day  of  May,  1907,  it  is  ordered  that  the  Elgin,  Joliet  and 
Eastern  Railway  Company  shall  allow  the  said  Chicago  and  Southern  Trac- 
tion Company  to  cross  its  said  tracks  at  grade  and  said  Chicago  and  South- 
ern Traction  Company  shall  construct  and  maintain  a  first-class  de-rail  at 
said  crossing  while  the  said  grade  crossing  is  in  use  and  that  at  the  expira- 
tion of  said  time,  to- wit:  The  first  day  of  May,  1907,  said  Chicago  and  South- 
ern Traction  Company  shall  remove  said  grade  crossing  and  derail  and 
thereafter  shall  cross  said  tracks  by  means  of  an  under-crossing. 

It  is  further  ordered  that  the  parties  hereto  may  agree  as.  to  how  said 
under-crossing  shall  be  made,  provided  always  that  the  same  is  to  be  com- 
pleted and  in  operation  as  above  set  forth,  by  the  first  of  May,  1907. 

Provided,  further,  that  if  for  any  good  reason  the  said  Chicago  and  South- 
ern Traction  Company  are  unable  to  fully  complete  said  work  by  the  first 
of  May,  1907,  that  they  have  the  right  before  that  time  to  apply  to  this 
commission  for  an  extension  of  time  in  which  to  complete  said  crossing. 
It  being  the  intention  of  this  order  that  the  Illinois  Railroad  and  Warehouse 
Commission  shall  retain  jurisdiction  herein  of  the  subject  matter  and  the 
parties  to  this  proceeding  until  said  under-crossing  is  fully  completed. 

It  Is  further  ordered  that  the  said  Chicago  and  Southern  Traction  Com- 
pany shall,  pay  the  costs  of  this  proceeding,  including  the  expenses  of  the  com- 
mission. 

Dated  at  Springfield,  111.,  'Sentember  13,  1906. 

[Signed]     AKTHUB  L.  FRENCH,  Commissioner. 
I.  L.   ELLWOOD,    Commissioner. 


Edwin  Beggs 

vs. 
Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  Railroad  Co. 

Petition  Complaining  of  Excessive  Minimum  Weights. 

Petition  filed  May  21,  1906,  complaining  of  the  excessive  minimum  weight 
on  grain  shipments. 

Case  set  for  hearing  before  the  commission  June  5,  1906. 
Case  still  pending. 


Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  Co. 

vs. 
Danville   &   Edwardsville   Terminal   Railway   Ca. 

Petition  Objecting  to  Crossing. 

Petition  filed  May  21,  1906,  objecting  to  crossing  at  Venice,  111. 
Place  of  proposed  crossing  viewed  by  the  commission  May  28,  1906. 
Case  set  for  hearing,  Jan.  8,  1907. 
Case  continued  to  Feb.  5,  1907. 


93 

Danville  &  Edwardsville  Terminal  Ry.  Co. 

vs. 
Venice  Terminal  Railway  Co. 

Petition  Objecting  to  Place  and  Manner  of  Crossing. 

Petition  filed  July  14,  1906,  objecting  to  manner  and  place  of  crossing  at 
Venice,  111. 

Case  set  for  hearing  July  24,  1906.  Continued  to  Aug.  7,  1906.  Case  set- 
tled by  agreement  of  both  parties. 


Hammond  Belt  Ry.  Co. 

vs. 
South  Chicago  &  Southern  Railroad  Company. 

Petition  to  Cross  at  Grade. 

Petition  filed  July  27,  1906,  to  cross  at  grade  at  Calumet  Park,  Cook  county, 
Illinois. 

Place  of  proposed  crossing  viewed  by  the  commission  Nov.  13,  1906. 
Case  set  for  hearing  at  Chicago  Nov.  23,  1906. 
Case  continued  until  Feb.  7,  1907. 


City  of  Staunton 

vs. 
The  Wabash  Railroad  Company. 

Petition  Complains  of  Excessive  Switching  Charges. 

Petition  filed  July  31,  1906,  complaining  of  excessive  switching  charges. 
Case  set  for  hearing  before  the  commission  Sept.  4,  1906. 
Case  settled  by  agreement  and  case  dismissed. 


Chicago  &  Alton  R.  R.  Co. 

and  Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  Ry.  Co. 

vs. 

The  Jacksonville  Railway  &  Light  Co. 
and  The  Illinois  Western  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  Objecting  to  Crossing. 

Petition  filed  July  30,  1906,  objecting  to  grade  crossing  at  State  street,  in 
Jacksonville,  111. 

Place  of  proposed  crossing  viewed  by  the  commission  Dec.  19,  1906. 
Case  set  for  hearing  Jan.  8,  1907. 
Case  continued  to  Feb.  5,  1907. 


Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  Co. 

vs. 

The  Jacksonville  Railway  &  Light  Co. 
and  The  Illinois  Western  Railway  Co. 

Petition  Objecting  to  Grade  Crossing. 

Petition  filed  Aug.  10,  1906,  objecting  to  grade  crossing,  two  and  one-half 
miles  south  of  Jacksonville. 

Place  of  proposed  crossing  viewed  by  the  commission  Dec.  18,  1906. 
Case  set  for  hearing  Jan.  8,  1907. 
Case  continued  to  Feb.  5,  1907. 


94 

Ehlebe,  Hunt  &  Co.  of  Warsaw,  111., 

vs. 
The  Toledo,  Peoria  &  Western  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  Complaining  of  Insufficient  Train  Service. 

Petition  filed  Sept.  15,  1906,  complaining  of  insufficient  train  service  be- 
tween Hamilton  and  Warsaw,  111. 

Case  postponed  indefinitely  at  request  of  petitioner. 


South  Chicago  &  Southern  R.  R.  Co. 

vs. 
The  Hammond  Belt  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  Objecting  to  Crossing  at  Grade. 

Petition  filed  Nov.  3,  1906,  objecting  to  crossing  at  grade  at  Calumet  Park, 
Illinois. 

Place  of  proposed  crossing  viewed  by  the  commission  Nov.  13,  1906. 
Case  set  for  hearing  Nov.  23  at  Chicago. 
Case  continued  to  Feb.  7,  1907,  at  Chicago. 


Sandoval  Coal  &  Mining  Co. 

vs. 
Baltimore  &  Ohio  Southwestern  Railroad  Company. 

Petition  Asking  for  Rehearing. 

Petition  of  the  B.  &  O.  S.-W.  R.  R.  Co.,  asking  for  rehearing  in  the  above 
case  filed. 

Case  set  for  hearing  Aug.  7,  1906. 
Case  postponed  to  Sept.  4,  1906. 
Case  postponed  to  Dec.  4,  1906.    Petition  denied  by  commission. 


Chicago  &  Alton  Railroad  Co. 

vs. 
Springfield  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  Objecting  to  Grade  Crossing. 

Petition  filed  Nov.  28,  1906,  objecting  to  grade  crossing  projected  on  West 
street,  in  the  city  of  Carlinville. 

Place  of  proposed  crossing  viewed  by  the  commission  Dec.  19,  1906. 
Case  set  for  hearing  Feb.  5,  1907. 


Illinois  Central  Railroad  Co. 

Baltimore  &  Ohio   Southwestern  R.  R.   Co. 

and  Southern  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  filed  Dec.  8,  1906,  asking  for  a  modification  of  rule  23  in  the  Com- 
missioners' Classification  No.  10. 


95 

Citizens  of  Granite  City,  111., 

vs. 

Chicago  &  Alton  R.  R.  Co. 

The  Cleveland,  Cincinnati,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis  Railway  Co. 
Chicago,  Peoria  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co. 
and  The  Wabash  R.  R.  Co. 

Complaint. 

Complaint  filed  Dec.  17,  1906,  complaining  of  lack  of  proper  facilities  for 
handling  of  freight  at  that  point. 

Commission  viewed  the  place  and  conditions  Jan.  15,  1907. 


OPINIONS  OF  ATTORNEY  GENERAL 


ON 


Matters  Relating  to  the  Railroad  and  Ware- 
house Commission. 


—7  O 


99 


Opinions  of  the  Attorney  General  in  Matters  Relating  to  the  Rail- 
road and  Warehouse  Commission. 


STATE  OF  ILLINOIS,  OFFICE  OF  ATTORNEY  GENERAL. 

SPRINGFIELD,  ILL.,  Jan.  22,  1906. 

Honorable  William  Kilpatrick,  Secretary  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commis- 
sion, Sprinfffield,  Illinois: 

DEAR  SIR: — Your  favor  of  the  10th  inst.,  asking  for  an  opinion  as  to  whether 
the  Acts  in  regard  to  safety  appliances  on  railroads  and  the  inspection  of 
safety  appliances  on  railroads,  passed  at  the  last  session  of  the  Legislature, 
apply  to  interurban  electric  railways,  duly  received. 

The  Act  in  regard  to  safety  appliances  on  railroads  is  entitled,  "An  Act 
to  promote  the  safety  of  employ6s  and  travelers  upon  railroads  by  compelling 
common  carriers  engaged  in  moving  traffic  by  railroad  between  points  .in  the 
State  of  Illinois  to  equip  their  cars  with  automatic  couplers  and  continuous 
brakes  and  their  locomotives  with  driving  wheel  brakes,  and  for  other 
purposes." 

Section  1  of  this  Act  provides  that  from  and  after  its  passage  it  shall  be 
unlawful  for  any  common  carrier  engaged  in  moving  traffic  by  railroad 
between  points  in  this  State  to  use  on  its  line  any  locomotive  not  equipped 
with  a  power  driving  wheel  brake  and  appliances  for  operating  the  train 
brake  system,  or  to  run  any  train  that  has  not  a  sufficient  number  of  cars 
in  it  so  equipped  with  power  or  train  brakes  that  the  engineer  on  the 
locomotive  drawing  such  train  can  control  its  speed  without  requiring  brake- 
men  to  use  the  common  hand  brake  for  that  purpose. 

Sec.  2  provides  that  it  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  such  carrier  to  haul 
or  permit  to  be  hauled  or  used  on  its  lines  any  locomotive,  tender,  car  or 
similar  -vehicle  not  equipped  with  couplers,  coupling  automatically  by  im- 
pact etc. 

Sec.  4  provides  that  it  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  railroad  company  to  use 
any  locomotive,  tender,,  car  or  similar  vehicle  that  is  not  provided  with 
secure  grab  irons  or  hand  holds  in  the  ends  and  sides  of  each  locomotive, 
tender,  car  or  similar  vehicle,  etc. 

The  title  of  the  Act,  by  using  the  words,  "and  their  locomotives,"  would 
imply  that  the  Act  was  only  in  relation  to  such  common  carriers  as  used 
locomotives. 

Section  1  above  mentioned  relates  only  to  locomotives  and  to  trains  of 
cars  that  can  be  controlled  by  the  engineer  on  the  locomotives.  This  section 
clearly  would  not  apply  to  an  electric  interurban  car. 

Sec.  2.  relates  to  locomotives,  tenders,  cars  and  similar  vehicles,  and  I 
do  not  think  it  applies  to  electric  interurban  cars. 

Sec.  4  likewise  relates  to  grab  irons  and  hand  holds  in  the  ends  and 
sides  of  locomotives,  tenders,  cars  and  similar  vehicles.- 

Street  cars  are  specifically  exempted  from  the  provisions  of  the  Act  by 
section6. 

In  construing  this  whole  Act,  together  with  its  title,  I  am  of  the  opinion 
that  it  has  no  application  to  interurban  cars  operated  by  electricity. 

The  Act  in  regard  to  the  inspection  of  safety  appliances  on  railroads  is 
entitled,  "An  Act  providing  for  the  inspection  of  equipment  and  operation 


zoo 

of  safety  appliances  on  railroads  engaged  in  moving  traffic  between  points 
in  the  State  of  Illinois." 

Section  1  of  this  last  mentioned  Act  provides  that  an  inspection  of  auto- 
matic couplers,  power  brakes  and  grab  irons,  or  handholds,  on  railroad 
locomotives,  tenders,  cars  and  similar  vehicles  shall  be  appointed,  etc.,  and 
further,  that  no  person  shall  be  eligible  to  hold  the  office  who,  among  other 
things,  has  not  had  at  least  seven  years  of  practical  experience  on  some 
line  of  railroad  operated  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  in  one  or  more  of  the 
following  capacities:  Engineer,  fireman,  conductor,  yardmaster,  brakeman, 
train  baggageman,  switchman,  car  inspector  or  repairer. 

Sec.  4  provides  that  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  said  inspector  to  inspect  thte 
couplers,  power  brakes,  grab  irons  and  hand  holds  on  railroads  and  make 
weekly  reports  to  your  commissioners,  reporting  all  locomotives,  tenders, 
cars  or  similar  vehicles  which  are  found  to  be  defective,  etc. 

This  last  mentioned  Act  was  unquestionably  passed  in  order  to  enforce 
the  provisions  of  the  first  mentioned  Act,  and  I  am  of  the  opinion  that 
this  last  mentioned  Act  has  no  application  to  interurban  railroads  operated 
by  electricity.  I  think  it  is  plainly  apparent,  on  a  consideration  of  the 
different  provisions  of  these  two  Acts,  that  it  was  not  the  intention  of  the 
Legislature  that  they  should  have  any  application  to  interurban  railroads 
or  street  cars  operated  by  electricity.  Yours  truly, 

W.  H.  STEAD, 

Attorney  General. 


STATE  OF  ILLINOIS,  OFFICE  OF  ATTORNEY  GENERAL. 

SPRINGFIELD,  ILL.,  May  10,  1906. 

Honorable  William  Kilpatrick,  Secretary  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commis- 
sion, Springfield,  Illinois; 

DEAR  SIR — Your  favor  of  the  5th  inst.  duly  received.  Section  4  of  "An 
Act  to  promote  the  safety  of  employes  and  travelers  of  railroads,"  etc.,  pro- 
vides: 

"That  from  and  after  the  passage  of  this  Act,  it  shall  be  unlawful  for  any 
railroad  company  to  use  any  locomotive,  tender,  car  or  similar  vehicle  in 
connection  with  the  movement  of  traffic  between  points  in  this  State,  that  is 
not  provided  with  secure  grab  irons,  or  hand  holds,  in  the  ends  and  sides 
of  each  locomotive,  tender,  car  or  similar  vehicle,  for  greater  security  to  men 
in  coupling  and  uncoupling  cars." 

You  state  that  a  number  of  railroads  have  attached  these  grab  irons,  or 
hand  holds,  underneath  the  end  sills  of  the  car,  which  make  then  practically 
useless  for  the  purpose  for  which  they  were  intended;  and  you  further  state 
that  for  the  security  of  the  men,  the  grab  irons  ought  to  be  in  the  end  or 
sides  of  the  car,  and  not  underneath.  If  the  railroads  place  these  grab  irons 
underneath  the  sills  of  the  cars  so  that  they  are  useless  for  the  purpose  for 
which  they  were  intended,  then  such  railroads  have  not  complied  with  the 
terms  of  said  Act.  The  grab  irons  and  hand  holds  must  be  placed  in  the 
ends  and  sides  of  the  cars  in  such  a  position  that  they  can  be  used  by  the 
men  for  greater  security  in  coupling  and  uncoupling  the  cars. 

Yours  truly, 

W.  H.  STEAD, 

Attorney  General. 


STATE  OF  ILLINOIS,  OFFICE  OF  ATTORNEY  GENERAL. 

SPRINGFIELD,  June  23,  1906. 

Honorable  William  Kilpatrick,  Secretary  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commis- 
sion, Springfield,  Illinois: 

DEAR  SIR — By  your  letter  of  May  8,  with  reference  to  the  controversy  be- 
tween the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company  and  the  Toledo,  Peoria  and 
Western  Railway  Company,  over  the  interchange  of  business  at  Cha^sworth, 
you  make  the  following  statement  of  facts: 

"At  Chatsworth,  Illinois,  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company  is  crossed 
by  the  Toledo,  Peoria  and  Western  Railway  Company,  and  there  is  a  "Y" 


101 

connection  between  the  two  lines  for  the  interchange  of  business.  On  the 
right-of-way  of  the  Toledo,  Peoria  and  Western  Railway  Company  are  located 
two  elevators,  several  coal  sheds  and  lumber  yards,  and  the  property  upon 
which  these  are  located  is  held  by  lease  from  the  railroad  company.  The 
parties  holding  these  leases,  in  the  transaction  of  their  business,  have  received 
consignments  in  car  load  lots  over  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad,  which  has 
been  set  upon  the  "Y,"  to  be  taken  from  that  point  by  the  T.,  P.  &  W.  Ry. 
and  placed  upon  the  side  track  of  the  T.,  P.  &  W.  Railroad  for  unloading  by 
the  parties  to  whom  they  were  consigned.  The  Toledo,  Peoria  and  Western 
Railway  Company  have  refused  to  receive  these  cars  and  deliver  them  to 
the  parties  to  whom  consigned." 

You  submit  the  question  as  to  whether  service  of  this  kind  could  be  de- 
manded of  a  railroad  company. 

On  the  17th  of  May  I  wrote  you,  requesting  a  further  statement  of  facts, 
in  the  form  of  answers  to  certain  questions  propounded,  and  I  am  in  receipt 
of  your  favor  of  the  15th  inst.,  in  which  the  following  additional  particulars 
are  given: 

"First — The  T.,  P.  &  W.  Ry.  Co.  have  switch  tracks  at  Chatsworth. 
"Second — The  elevators,  coal  sheds  and  lumber  yards  on  the  right  of  way 
of  the  T.,  P.  &  W.  Ry.  are  inside  of  its  yards. 

"Third — The  elevators,  coal  sheds  and  lumber  yards  are  also  inside  of  the 
limits  of  the  village. 

"Fourth — The  'Y'  was  constructed  jointly  by  the  two  railroad  companies, 
and  the  object  of  the  construction  was  for  the  interchange  of  traffic  between 
the  two  roads. 

"Fifth — The  'Y'  connects  the  main  tracks  of  the  two  railroad  companies. 
"Sixth— The  'Y'  is  also  inside  the  limits  of  the  village. 

You  enclose  also  a  map  or  diagram  showing  the  relative  location  of  the 
road,  the  yards,  switches,  elevators,  coal  sheds,  etc.,  and  the  "Y"  connection. 
Railroad  companies  engaged  in  the  business  of  carrying  goods  and  prop- 
erty for  hire  are  common  carriers,  engaged  in  the  exercise  of  a  public 
employment  and  are  bound  in  larw  to  carry,  so  far  as  their  facilities  enable 
them,  whatever  is  offered  for  carriage  and  is  properly  to  be  carried  if  paid 
for. 

Chicago  &  Alton  R.  R.  Co.  vs.  People  ex  rel,  Koerner,  67  111.,  11; 
Peoria  and  Rock  Island  Ry.  Co.  vs.  The  Valley  Coal  Co.,  68  111.,  489. 
Aside  from  constitutions  and  statutes,  on  principle,  railroads,  as  common 
carriers,  must  receive  and  transport  cars  of  other  roads  when  tendered  under 
proper  conditions,   where  the  gauge   is  suitable  and   the  cars  offered  not 
defective. 

Peoria,  etc.,  R.  R.  vs.  Chicago,  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  109  111.,  135; 
Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  vs.  Flannigan,  11  111.,  365; 
Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  vs.  Black,  88  111.,  112. 

A  "Y"  connection  can  not  be  forced  on  two  roads,  but  if  they  voluntarily 
build  them,  they  may  be  compelled  to  receive  and  deliver  cars  and  exchange 
freight. 

American  Railroad  Law,  page  144; 

Peoria  &  Pekin  Ry.  Co.  vs..C.,  B..I.  &  P.  Ry.  Co.,  109  111.,  135. 
The  following  authorities  also  bear  more  or  less  directly  on  the  question 
presented : 

Peoria,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  vs.  Rolling  Stock  Co.,  136  111.,  643;   49  Am.  St. 

Rep.,  348; 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  vs.  Curtis,  66  Am.  Rep.,  463;   50  Am.  Rep., 

605; 
Vermont,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  vs.  Fitchburg  R.  R.  Co.,  14  Allen,  462;  92 

Am.  Dec.,  785; 
Machin  vs.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  135  Mass.,  201;  46  Am.  Rep.,  456; 

96  Am.  Dec.,  742; 

C.  d  N.  W.  Ry.  Co.  vs.  Stantro,  87  111.,  195. 

I  do  not  think  these  railroad  companies  could  have  been  compelled  to 
connect  their  roads  by  the  "Y,"  but  having  done  so  and  now  having  the 
facilities  for  the  interchange  of  business,  I  am  of  the  opinion  such  service 


103 

as  is  required  in  the  case  submitted  may  be  demanded,  and  that  it  is  the 
plain  duty  of  the  Toledo,  Peoria  and  Western  Railway  Company,  under  the 
conditions  described,  to  take  such  cars  off  the  "Y"  and  deliver  same  to 
consignee,  the  proper  charge  for  such  service  being  paid  or  tendered. 

Very  respectfully  yours, 

W.  H.  STEAD, 

Attorney  General. 


STATE  OF  ILLINOIS,  OFFICE  OF  ATTORNEY  GENERAL. 

SPRINGFIELD,  July  6,  1906. 

Honorable  William  KilpatricJc,  Secretary  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commis- 
sion, Springfield,  Illinois: 

DEAR  SIR— I  am  in  receipt  of  your  favor  of  the  3d  inst.,  enclosing  a  letter 
from  B.  H.  Lawson  of  Etna,  Illinois,  which  submits  certain  facts  upon  which 
you  desire  the  opion  of  this  office. 

About  twenty  years  ago  the  village  of  Etna  petitioned  the  Illinois  Central 
Railroa.d  Company  to  erect  a  depot  and  furnish  a  telegraph  operator  at  that 
point.  Said  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company  promised  that  if  the  citizens 
of  Etna  would  donate  $200.00  and  furnish  teams  free  to  grade  and  extend 
the  switch,  the  peition  of  the  citizens  would  be  granted.  Two  hundred 
dollars  was  donated  and  the  switch  grades  were  extended.  A  telegraph 
operator  was  placed  in  charge  of  the  depot  and  is  continued  to  this  day.  It 
is  now  proposed  by  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company  to  remove  the 
telegraph  office  and  employ  some  local  man  to  take  care  of  the  freight.  Mr. 
Lawson  sets  up  the  amount  of  business  transacted  at  this  station,  showing 
the  number  of  cars  of  corn,  oats,  hay  and  straw,  live  stock,  broom  corn  and 
household  goods  shipped  from  said  station  during  the  year  1905.  It  also 
appears  that  two  grain  elevators  have  been  erected  at  said  point.  Bids  for 
grain  are  usually  received  on  the  early  morning  train,  with  requests  of 
the  bidders,  if  accepted,  to  answer  by  wire.  The  question  submitted  in  your 
letter  is,  "Can  the  Warehouse  and  Railroad  Commission  compel  the  Illinois 
Central  Railroad  Company  to  retain  at  this  point  a  telegraph  office?" 

I  am  of  the  opinion  that  it  is  not  within  the  power  of  the  Railroad  and 
Warehouse  Commission  to  compel  the  retention  of  the  telegraph  office  at  the 
village  of  Etna,  under  the  facts  noted  above.  As  noted  from  the  above 
statement  of  facts,  no  complaint  is  made  against  the  railroad  company  on 
account  of  the  maintenance  of  the  depot  for  the  receipt  and  discharge  of 
passengers  and  for  furnishing  and  running  cars  for  the  transportation  of 
freight.  The  sole  complaint  relates  to  the  maintenance  of  the  telegraph 
office.  It  is  not  one  of  the  duties  enjoined  upon  a  railroad  company  to 
maintain  a  telegraph  office  for  the  use  of  the  patrons  of  the  road.  Hence, 
the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  would  have  no  jurisdiction  or 
authority  to  enter  an  order  commanding  the  railroad  company  to  maintain 
such  office.  Very  respectfully, 

W.  H.  STEAD, 

Attorney  General. 


July  17,  1906. 

Honorable  William  KilpatricJc,  Secretary  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commis- 
sion, Springfield,  Illinois: 

DEAR  SIB — I  beg  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  July  7,  in 
which  you  submit  the  following  statement  of  facts: 

There  are  thirty-three  separate  and  distinct  lines  of  railroad  composing 
what  is  called  the  New  York  Central  lines.  The  C.,  C.,  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co. 
and  the  C.,  I.  &  So.  Ry.  Co.  are  two  of  these  lines.  These  two  companies 
maintain  a  junction  at  Kankakee  for  the  interchange  of  cars,  and  it  seems 
that  they  interchange  cars  that  are  either  not  equipped  in  conformity  to 
the  requirements  of  the  Safety  Appliance  Act  of  this  State  entitled,  "An 
Act  to  promote  the  safety  of  employe's  and  travelers  upon  railroads,  by  com- 


103 

polling  common  carriers  engaged  in  moving  traffic  by  railroad  between  points 
in  the  State  of  Illinois  to  equip  their-  cars  with  automatic  couplers  and  con- 
tinuous air  brakes,  and  their  locomotives  with  driving  wheel  brakes,  and 
for  other  purposes,"  approved  May  12,  1905,  in  force  July  1,  1905;  or,  if 
such  cars  are  so  equipped,  their  equipment  has  become  defective. 

You  inquire  whether  the  said  Act  of  1905  is  applicable  to  this  state  of 
facts. 

In  reply  thereto,  will  say  I  assume  that  the  cars  mentioned  are  not  Im- 
pressed with  the  character  of  interstate  commerce,  and  that  you  desire  an 
opinion  relative  to  them  as  cars  used  in  carrying  the  traffic  from  one  point 
in  this  State  to  another  point  therein. 

If  the  corporate  existence  of  the  C.,  C.,  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co.  and  the  C.,  I.  & 
So.  Ry.  Co.  is  extinguished  and  swallowed  up  in  the  consolidate  corporation 
owning  the  New  York  Central  lines,  then  even  though  the  haul  on  the  C., 
C.,  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co.  and  the  haul  on  the  C.,  I.  &  (So.  Ry.  Co.,  be  treated 
as  one  continuous  haul,  such  consolidated  corporation  would  be  liable,  if  it 
used  cars  prohibited  by  the  said  Act  of  1905.  If  the  corporate  existence  of 
these  two  companies  be  not  extinguished  and  each  maintains  a  separate 
corporate  existence,  then,  even  though  they  be  owned  by  the  same  persons  or 
syndicate  which  owns  the  New  York  Central  lines,  each  of  these  two  com- 
panies would  be  liable  if  it  used  cars  prohibited  by  said  Act. 

I  am,  therefore,  of  the  opinion  that  the  Act  of  1905  is  applicable  to  the 
exchange  by  these  two  railroad  companies  of  defective  cars  at  their  junction 
in  Kankakee. 

Of  course,  this  Act  has  no  application  to  defective  cars  that  are  in  transit 
to  the  repair  shop.  Very  respectfully, 

W.  H.  STEAD, 

Attorney  General. 


July  28,  1906. 

Honorable  William  Kilpatrick,  Secretary  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commis- 
sion, Springfield,  Illinois: 

DEAR  SIB — On  July  17  I  gave  you  an  opinion  relative  to  the  Safety  Appli- 
ance Act  of  1905.  On  July  21  you,  in  company  with  Mr.  Wright,  called  at 
this  office  to  make  objections  to  some  portions  of  that  opinion. 

I  have  reconsidered  the  grounds  of  this  opinion  and  see  no  reason  why 
any  change  should  be  made  in  any  material  particular  thereof.  Inasmuch, 
however,  as  the  last  paragraph  of  said  opinion  might  be  subject  to  miscon- 
struction, I  have  rewritten  it.  The  opinion,  therefore,  as  modified  is  as 
follows: 

I  beg  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  July  7,  in  which  you 
submit  the  following  statements  of  facts: 

There  are  thirty-three  separate  and  distinct  lines  of  railroad  comprising 
what  is  called  the  New  York  Central  lines.  The  C.,  C.,  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co. 
and  the  C.,  I.  &  So.  Ry.  Co.  are  two  of  these  lines.  These  two  companies 
maintain  a  junction  at  Kankakee  for  the  interchange  of  cars,  and  it  seems 
that  the  interchange  cars  that  are  either  not  equipped  in  conformity  to  the 
requirements  of  the  Safety  Appliance  Act  of  this  State  entitled,  "An  Act 
to  promote  the  safety  of  employe's  and  travelers  upon  railroads,  by  com- 
pelling common  carriers  engaged  in  moving  traffic  by  railroad  between  points 
in  the  State  of  Illinois  to  equip  their  cars  with  automatic  couplers  and  con- 
tinuous air  brakes,  and  their  locomotives  with  driving  wheel  brakes,  and 
for  other  purposes,"  approved  May  12,  1905,  in  force  July  1,  1905;  or,  if 
such  cars  are  so  equipped,  their  equipment  has  become  defective. 

You  inquire  whether  the  said  Act  of  1905  is  applicable  to  this  state  of 
facts. 

In  reply  thereto,  will  say  that  I  assume  that  the  cars  mentioned  are  not 
impressed  with  the  character  of  interstate  commerce,  and  that  you  desire 
an  opinion  relative  to  them  as  cars  used  in  carrying  the  traffic  from  one- 
point  in  this  State  to  another  point  therein. 


IO4 

• -'If  the  corporate  existence  of  the  C.,  C.,  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co.  and  of  the 
C.y  I.'  &  So.  Ry.  Co.  is  extinguished  and  swallowed  up  in  the  consolidated 
corporation  owning  the  New  York  Central  lines,  then,  even  though  the  haul 
on  the  C.,  C.,  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co.  and  the  haul  on  the  C.,  I.  &  So.  Ry.  Co. 
be  treated  as  one  continuous  haul,  such  consolidated  corporation  would  be 
liable,  if  it  used  cars  prohibited  by  the  said  Act  of  1905.  If  the  corporate 
existence  of  these  two  companies  be  not  extinguished  and  each  maintains  a 
separate  corporate  existence,  then,  even  though  they  be  owned  by  the  name 
persons  or  syndicate  which  owns  the  New  York  Central  lines,  each  of  these 
two  companies  would  be  liable,  if  it  used  cars  prohibited  by  said  Act. 

I  am,  therefore,  of  the  opinion  that  the  Act  of  1905  is  applicable  to  the 
exchange  of  these  two  railroad  companies  of  defective  cars  at  their  junction 
at  Kankakee. 

While  the  Act  does  not  permit  a  railroad  company  to  receive  defective 
cars  from  a  connecting  line,  except  its  own  cars  (and  it  could  only  receive 
its  own  cars  for  the  purpose  of  taking  them  to  the  repair  shop,)  yet  & 
railroad  company  would  have  the  right  to  haul  on  its  line  cars  that  have 
become  deffective  thereon  to  the  nearest  repair  shop  on  such  line,  to  be 
repaired.  (Taylor  vs.  Boston  &  M.  R.  R.,  74  N.  E.  Rep.  (Mass.),  591.) 

Very  respectfully, 

W.  H.  STEAD, 

Attorney  General. 


Sept.  22,  1906. 

Honorable  William  KilpatricTc,  Secretary  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commis- 
sion, Springfield,  Illinois: 

DEAR  SIB — I  am  in  receipt  of  your  favor  of  the  10th  inst.  enclosing  a  letter 
from  Honorable  J.  F.  Gillham,  State's  attorney  of  Madison  county,  and  sub- 
mitting the  question  as  to  whether  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission 
has  any  jurisdiction  in  relation  to  the  fixing  of  rates  for  the  carriage  of 
freight  by  express  companies  of  the  State  of  Illinois. 

In  reply,  I  beg  to  call  your  attention  to  sections  8  and  11  of  the  Act 
entitled,  "Extortion  and  Unjust  Discrimination,"  Kurd's  Revised  Statutes, 
1905,  page  1588.  Said  section  8  provides  as  follows: 

"The  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commissioners  are  hereby  directed  to  make' 
for  each  of  the  railroad  corporations  doing  business  in  this  State,  as  soon 
as  practicable,  a  schedule  of  reasonable  maximum  rates  of  charges  for  the 
transportation  of  passengers  and  freights,  and  cars  of  each  of  said  rail- 
roads. *********** 

It  will  be  observed  that  said  section  8,  as  well  as  all  of  the  other  sections 
of  said  Act,  mention  railroad  companies  simply  and  do  not  refer  in  terms 
to  express  companies,  but  said  section  11  defines  what  is  meant  by  the  term 
railroad  corporation,  and  contains  the  following  provisions: 

"And  the  provisions  of  this  Act  shall  appply  to  all  persons,  firms  and  com- 
panies, and  to  all  associations  of  persons,  whether  incorporated  or  otherwise, 
that  shall  do  business  as  common  carriers  upon  any  of  the  lines  of  railways 
in  this  State  (street  railways  excepted),  the  same  as  to  railroad  corporations 
hereinbefore  mentioned." 

As  express  companies  are  common  carriers,  I  am  of  the  poinion  that  the 
portion  of  section  11  above  quoted  clearly  brings  express  companies  within 
the  terms  of  the  Act,  and  that  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  has 
the  power  to  fix  reasonable  maximum  rates  for  the  carriage  of  freight  by 
express  companies  in  the  State  of  Illinois. 

I  return  herewith  the  letter  of  Mr.  Gillham,  as  requested. 

Yours  repectfully, 

W.  H.  STEAD, 

Attorney  General. 


105 

STATE  OF  ILLINOIS,  OFFICE  OF  ATTORNEY  GENERAL. 

SPRINGFIELD,  Sept.  26,  1906. 

Honorable  William  Kilpatrick,  Secretary  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commis- 
sion, Springfield,  Illinois: 

DEAR  SIR — I  have  your  favor  of  Sept.  19,  in  which  you  inquire  "whether 
a  railroad  company  has  the  right  to  take  up  and  abandon  the  switch  con- 
nection to  an  industry  on  their  line  after  having  been  maintained  for  many 
years;  and  if  so,  whether  this  commission  has  any  jurisdiction  in  a  case  of 
the  kind  as  stated  in  the  enclosed  corrrespondence." 

The  correspondence  enclosed  with  your  letter  discloses  that  for  several 
years  the  Wabash  Railroad  Company  has  maintained  a  switch  or  side  track 
at  Decatur.  After  said  switch  or  side  track  was  constructed  the  Central 
Malleable  Iron  Company  located  its  plant  on  said  track  or  switch,  under 
some  agreement  with  the  railroad  company.  The  railroad  company  now  has 
constructed  or  intends  to  construct  its  shops  at  Decatur,  by  reason  whereof 
the  railroad  company  deems  it  necessary  to  take  up  and  abandon  said  switch 
or  side  track.  The  Central  Malleable  Iron  Company  receives  all  its  materials 
and  supplies  by  means  of  this  switch  or  side  track,  and  if  it  be  removed  this 
industry  will  be  practically  ruined.  There  are  two  other  industries  on  this 
switch  or  side  track  that  are  similarly  situated. 

The  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  has  only  such  powers  as  are 
expressly  conferred  upon  it  by  statute  and  those  necessarily  inferred  from 
powers  expressly  granted.  I  am  not  able  to  discover  any  provision  of  the 
statutes  which  confers  upon  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  juris- 
diction over  this  matter.  It  is  not  a  subject  which  touches  the  relation  of 
the  railroad  to  the  public  or  which  pertains  to  the  accommodations  and 
security  of  a  person  doing  business  with  the  public.  It  involves  merely  the 
right  of  a  private  enterprise  to  have  the  railroad  company  continue  a  switch 
or  side  track  which  is  convenient  or  necessary  to  the  operation  of  the  busi- 
ness of  said  private  enterprise. 

I  am,  therefore,  of  the  opinion  that  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commis- 
sion has  no  jurisdiction  over  this  matter. 

The  right  of  the  Central  Malleable  Iron  Company  to  compel  the  Wabash 
Railroad  Company  to  continue  this  switch  or  side  track  is  a  proposition 
upon  which  I  express  no  opinion.  Very  respectfully, 

W.  H.  STEAD, 

Attorney  General. 


STATE  OF  ILLINOIS,  OFFICE  OF  ATTORNEY  GENERAL. 

SPRINGFIELD,  Nov.  16,  1906. 

Honorable  William  Kilpatrick,  Secretary  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commis- 
sion, Springfield,  Illinois: 

DEAR  SIR — On  Oct.  13  you  addressed  to  this  department  a  communication 
enclosing  a  letter  from  Mr.  J.  C.  Lincoln,  of  the  St.  Louis  Traffic  Bureau  of 
the  Merchants'  Exchange,  inquiring  as  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Railroad 
and  Warehouse  Commission  of  this  State  over  demurrage  charges  by  rail- 
roads, and  also  requesting  to  be  informed  if  there  is  any  law  in  Illinois 
regulating  demurrage  charges  or  any  Illinois  court  decision  along  these 
lines.  On  Oct.  18  you  addressed  another  communication  to  this  department, 
enclosing  letter  from  Mr.  George  A.  Hotchkiss,  secretary,  Illinois  Lumber 
Dealers'  Association  of  Chicago,  submitting  practically  the  same  question 
as  that  submitted  bv  Mr.  Lincoln.  The  question  submitted  in  these  two  let- 
ters may  be  considered  together. 

In  reply,  I  beg  to  call  your  attention  to  two  opinions  rendered  to  your 
board  by  my  predecessor  on  July  1,  1902,  which  may  be  found  in  the  Report 
and  Opinions  of  the  Attorney  General  for  1901-1902,  on  pages  346-7  and  8, 
and  which  fully  answer  these  questions.  In  one  of  said  opinions  it  was  held 
that: 

"The  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commissioners  of  Illinois  are  not  author- 
ized to  make  rules  an  regulations  governing  demurrage  charges  by  a  rail- 


io6 

road  company,  whether  such  charges  are  made  by  virtue  of  a  special  contract 
or  as  a  claim  for  damages  for  detaining  the  cars  an  unreasonable  length  of 
time  before  unloading  therefrom." 

And  in  the  other  opinion  it  was  held  that: 

"While  property  is  in  transitu  and  for  a  reasonable  time  after  it  arrives 
at  its  destination,  so  long  as  the  liability  of  the  railroad  company  as  a 
common  carrier  continues,  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commissioners  have 
full  authority,  under  the  provisions  of  the  statute.  But  after  the  termination 
of  the  common  law  liability  of  the  carrier,  and  when  such  property  becomes 
goods  held  in  storage  by  the  railroad  company  as  a  warehouseman,  then 
the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commissioners  have  authority  and  jurisdiction 
so  far  as  supervision  is  concerned,  but  they  have  nothing  to  do  with  the 
regulation  of  storage  rates." 

I  fully  agree  with  these  opinions  of  my  predecessor,  so  far  as  they  hold 
that  the  Board  of  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commissioners  is  without  juris- 
diction of  power  to  regulate  demurrage  or  storage  charges  by  railroads. 

With  reference  to  the  other  question  submitted  by  Mr.  Lincoln,  as  to 
whether  there  is  any  law  in  Illinois  regulating  demurrage  charges  or  any 
court  decisions  along  such  lines,  my  predecessor  stated  in  one  of  said 
opionions,  in  the  report  referred  to,  page  347: 

"But  it  has  been  held  by  the  courts  of  Illinois  that  a  railroad  company 
cannot  create,  in  its  own  favor,  a  demurrage  charge  on  freight  not  removed 
from  a  car  within  a  certain  time,  by  simply  publishing  to  the  public  its 
intention  of  so  doing,  and  there  is  no  lien  upon  freight  for  any  supposed 
demurrage  charge  in  the  State  of  Illinois." 

Citing: 

C.,  C.,  C.  &  St.  L.  R.  R.  Co.  vs.  Holden,  73  App.,  583; 
C.,  C.,  C.  6  St.  L.  R.  R.  Co.  vs.  Lamm,  73  App.,  593. 

These  cases  sustain  the  proposition  held  in  said  opinion,  and  the  Supreme 
Court,  in  the  case  of  Chicago  &  Northwestern  Railway  Company  vs.  Robert 
E.  Jenkins,  103  111.,  page  588,  practically  decided  to  the  same  effect,  holding 
that  all  liens  are  created  by  law  or  by  contract  of  the  parties,  and  when  the 
law  gives  none,  neither  party  can  create  one  without  the  consent  or  agree- 
ment of  the  other;  that  the  law  will  never  indulge  in  the  presumption  of 
assent  to  rules  of  a  railway  company  for  a  lien  for  damages  caused  by  delay 
In  receiving  goods  shipped,  from  the  publication  of  the  same,  and  that  the 
right  to  demurrage  does  not  attach  to  carriers  by  railroads;  that  if  it  exists 
at  all  as  a  legal  right,  it  is  confined  to  the  maritime  law  and  only  exists  as 
to  carriers  by  sea-going  vessels,  and  even  then  it  is  believed  to  exist  alone 
by  contract. 

Our  Supreme  Court,  however,  in  the  case  of  Schumacher  vs.  Chicago  and 
Northwestern  Railway  Company,  207  111.,  199,  in  1904  in  an  opinion  by 
Mr.  Justice  Ricks,  considered  at  length  the  right  of  railroad  companies  in 
this  State  to  make  demurrage  or  storage  charges  on  carload  freight,  after 
allowing  a  consignee  a  reasonable  time  to  unload  the  same.  The  Court 
in  this  case  sustained  the  right  of  the  railroad  company  to  make  a  demurr- 
age or  car  service  charge  on  carload  freight,  after  allowing  the  consignee  a 
reasonable  time  to  unload  the  same,  and  held  that  the  railroad  company  is 
entitled  to  a  lien  upon  the  freight  for  such  charges;  that  the  existence  of  a 
lien  upon  carload  freight  for  car  service  charges  need  not  arise  from  a 
specific  contract  providing  for  the  same,  but  that  it  may  arise  by  implica- 
tion from  the  relation  which  the  company  sustains  as  a  warehouseman 
after  its  duty  as  a  carrier  ceases.  The  Court  further  held  in  this  case  that 
in  determining  what  is  a  reasonable  time  in  which  a  consignee  must  unload 
carload  freight  before  he  can  be  charged  a  car  service  fee,  the  distance  which 
the  freight  must  be  hauled  by  the  consignee  is  not  an  element  for  con- 
sideration. 

There  is  no  statute  in  Illinois  on  the  subject  of  demurrage  or  storage 
charges  by  railroad  companies.  In  the  Schumacher  case,  the  case  of  Chicago 
&  Northwestern  Railway  Company  vs.  Jenkins,  103  III.,  588,  is  distinguished. 


This  question  as  to  the  law  of  Illinois  on  the  subject  of  demurrage  and 
storage  charges  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  of  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  over  the  subject,  but  is  discussed 
here  in  answer  to  Mr.  Lincoln's  question  above  referred  to. 

Very  respectfully, 

W.  H.  STEAD, 

Attorney  General, 


STATE  OF  ILLINOIS,  OFFICE  OF  ATTORNEY  GENERAL. 

SPRINGFIELD,  Nov.  17,  1906. 

Honorable  William  KilpatricJc,  Secretary  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commis- 
sion, Springfield,  Illinois: 

DEAB  SIB — On  the  17th  of  October  you  addressed  a  letter  to  this  depart- 
ment, enclosing  a  copy  of  the  revised  rules  of  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad 
Company  governing  the  distribution  of  cars  at  coal  mines.  You  enclosed  also 
a  letter  addressed  to  the  commission  from  the  Wenona  Coal  Company,  com- 
plaining that  certain  of  said  rules  operate  to  work  a  discrimination  against 
coal  companies  in  the  matter  of  furnishing  and  distribution  of  cars  for  the 
transportation  of  coal  from  the  mines. 

You  request  my  opinion,  "Whether  the  conditions  as  set  forth  in  Mr.  Mon- 
ser's  letter  is  a  discrimination  which  ought  to  be  adjusted  by  this  commis- 
sion." 

Commissioners  of  this  character  are  creatures  of  the  statutes,  and  possess 
no  powers  except  what  the  statutes  expressly  confer  upon  them,  and  in  every 
case  their  authority  must  affirmatively  appear  from  the  statutes  under 
which  they  assume  to  act.  There  is  not  a  statute  in  Illinois  which  confers 
upon  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  the  power  to  supervise  or 
control  the  furnishing  or  distribution  of  cars. 

Section  22  of  an  Act  entitled,  "An  Act  in  relation  to  fencing  and  operating 
railroads,"  approved  March  31,  1874,  in  force  July  1,  1874,  Kurd's  Revised 
Statutes,  1905,  page  1,577  (1,581),  provides: 

"Every  railroad  corporation  in  the  State  shall  furnish,  start  and  run  cars 
for  the  transportation  of  such  passengers  and  property  as  shall  within  a 
reasonable  time  previous  thereto  be  ready  or  be  offered  for  transportation  at 
the  several  stations  on  its  railroads,  and  at  the  junction  of  other  railroads, 
and  at  such  stopping  places  as  may  be  established  for  receiving  and  dis- 
charging way-passengers  and  freight.  **«******» 

Section  85  of  said  Act  provides  a  penalty  for  a  violation  of  the  provisions 
thereof,  and  provides  that  the  railroad  company  shall  pay  the  party  aggrieved 
treble  the  amount  of  damages  sustained  by  reason  of  the  violation. 

The  Supreme  Court,  in  the  case  of  the  People  vs.  Railroad  and  Coal  Com- 
pany, 122  111.,  page  506  (pages  509-510),  construing  said  sections  84  and  85, 
hold  that  said  section  84  requires  a  railroad  company  to  furnish  the  operators 
of  a  coal  mine  sufficient  cars  to  transport  its  coal  on  notice  given  and  after 
the  coal  has  been  mined,  but  that  the  provisions  of  this  section  cannot  be 
extended  as  to  include  coal  in  the  earth  to  be  dug  and  raised  from  the  mines 
after  cars  are  furnished,  so  that  the  carrier  for  any  neglect  in  that  regard 
would  be  subject  to  the  penalty  of  treble  damages,  provided  by  said  section 
85.  See  also  Illinois  &  St.  Louis  Railroad  &  Coal  Company  vs.  People,  19  111. 
App.,  page  141. 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  provisions  of  the  section  of  the  statutes  above 
quoted  and  referred  to  and  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  and  Appellate  Courts 
construing  them  that  a  coal  company  would  not  be  without  remedy  for 
abuses  of  the  nature  complained  of  by  the  Wenona  Coal  Company. 

There  is  nothing,  however,  in  the  Act  above  referred  to  nor  in  any  other 
statute  which  gives  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  jurisdiction  on 
this  subject.  I  am  of  the  opinion,  therefore,  that  the  Railroad  and  Ware- 


io8 

house  Commission  is  not  vested  with  supervision  or  control  of  the  furnishing 
and  distribution  of  cars  to  coal  mines,  and  has  no  power  to  correct  or  adjust 
the  abuses  complained  of  by  the  Wenona  Coal  Company. 

Very  respectfully, 

W.  H.  STEAD, 

Attorney  General. 


APPELLATE  COURT  DECISIONS 


IN  CASE  OF 


Illinois  Central  R.  R.   Co.  vs.  St.  Louis  & 
Northeastern   Ry.   Co., 


IN  THE  MATTER  OF 


Crossing  in  the  City  of  Litchfield,  Illinois. 


.. .    '.  .  :-._ 


til 


General  No.  29.  November  Term,  1905.  Agenda  No.  7. 

Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company,  Appellant, 

vs.  . 
St.  Louis  &  Northeastern  Railroad  Company,  Appellee. 

Appeal  from  the  City  Court  of  the  City  of  Litchfield. 


This  is  an  appeal  from  an  interlocutory  order  granting  an  injunction 
against  appellant.  On  October  16,  19'05,  appellee  filed  its  bill  in  chancery 
against  appellant  and  the  city  court  thereupon  ordered  a  temporary  writ  of 
injunction  to  issue  without  notice,  which  was  issued  and  served  upon  appel- 
lant on  the  same  day.  "On  October  28,  1905,  the  defendant  filed  with  the 
clerk  of  the  court  an  appeal  bond  which  was  approved  by  the  clerk,  in 
accordance  with  the  statute  providing  "for  appeals  from  interlocutory  orders 
granting  injunctions  or  appointing  receivers." 

The  material  averments  of  the  bill  are  as  follows:  That  complainant  is  a 
railroad  corporation  organized  under  the  laws  of  Illinois  and  has  located  and 
is  constructing  its  line  of  railway  and  is  grading  and  laying  the  rails  thereof 
between  Staunton  and  Hillsboro,  passing  through  the  city  of  Litchfield;  that 
in  so  constructing  its  railroad,  complainant  is  compelled  to  cross  divers  steam 
railroad  tracks  and  rights  of  way  already  constructed  or  acquired  by  other 
railroad  corporations  between  Staunton  and  Hillsboro,  and  that  divers  of  said 
railroad  corporations,  particularly  the  C.,  13.  &  Q.  Railway  Company  and  the 
C.,  C.,  C.  &  St.  L.  Railway  Company  and  the  defendant,  are  unfriendly  and 
hostile  to  complainant  and  are  obstructing  and  endeavoring  to  obstruct  com- 
plainant in  the  completion  of  its  railroad  by  refusing  to  permit  complainant 
to  cross  their  tracks  and  by  inciting  other  property  owners  to  obstruct  it; 
that  the  proposed  railroad  of  complainant  will  be  operated  by  electricity  and 
is  what  is  commonly  called  an  "electric  railroad;"  that  in  its  operation 
within  cities  and  villages  it  performs  the  service  of  and  is  practically  a 
street  railway;  that  by  reason  thereof,  property  owners  and  business  men  of 
cities  and  villages  through  which  it  passes  encourage  and  generally  desire  its 
construction  through  the  business  portions  thereof  and  as  much  in  the 
streets  as  possible;  that,  by  reason  of  its  motive  power  and  method  of  opera- 
tion, much  greater  facilities  will  be  afforded  its  patrons  in  passenger  and 
freight  service  than  is  furnished  by  steam  roads  and  that  steam  roads,  gen- 
erally harass  and  incite  opposition  to  complainant  to  its  inconvenience  and 
injury;  that  in  order  to  meet  with  the  requirements  of  the  city  of  Litchfield 
and  its  citizens  and  business  men  complainant  located  its  line  so  as  to  pass 
over  private  property  to  within  a  quarter  of  a  mile  of  the  intersection  of 
Sargent  and  Clinton  streets,  in  the  city  of  Litchfield,  and  thence  over  certain 
streets  and  alleys  to  the  intersection  of  Sargent  and  Clinton  streets,  thence 
eastwardly  about  three  blocks  to  State  street,  the  latter  being  the  principal 
business  street  of  said  city,  and  thence  north  on  State  street  to  the  north  end 
thereof  and  around  the  city  park  and  eastwardly  on  Water  street  out  of  said 
city;  that  upon  petition  of  property  owners  owning  a  majority  of  the  frontage 
On  said  streets  and  of  each  mile  thereof,  the  city  council  of  said  city  passed 
an  ordinance  granting  to  the  St.  Louis  &  Springfield  Railway  Company,  the 
assignor  of  complainant,  the  right  to  construct  and  operate  its  railway  on 


in 

Sargent  street  from  an  alley  next  west  of  Clinton  street  eastwardly  to  State 
street  and  north  thereon  for  a  distance  of  four  blocks  and  requiring  said 
railway  to  be  laid  upon  the  established  grade  of  said  streets;  that  complain- 
ant made  the  necessary  surveys,  measures  and  levels  for  constructing  its 
railroad  in  said  streets  and  acquired  its  right  of  way  over  private  property 
where  required  to  connect  with  the  points  covered  by  said  ordinance  and  has 
graded  and  constructed  its  railroad  thereon  and  in  the  streets  and  alleys  of 
said  city  to  within  about  three  hundred  feet  of  the  intersection  of  Sargent 
and  Clinton  streets,  and  has  installed  its  permanent  crossings  over  the 
tracks  of  the  C.,  B.  &  Q.  Railway  Company  and  the  defendant  in  Sargent 
street;  that  the  city  of  Litchfield  is  the  owner  in  fee  of  Sargent  street  and 
has  heretofore  permitted  to  be  constructed  across  the  same  three  certain 
railroad  tracks  now  operated  as  steam  railroads  and  possessed  and  controlled 
respectively  by  the  Wabash  Railroad  Company,  the  C.(  B.  &  Q.  Ry.  Co.  and 
the  defendant  company,  and  that  said  city  also  permitted  certain  other  rail- 
road tracks  to  be  constructed  across  State  street,  which  last  mentioned  tracks 
are  possessed  and  operated  by  the  C.,  C.,  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co.;  that  each  of 
said  railroad  tracks  is  constructed  upon  the  grade  of  the  street  and  are  all 
practically  on  the  same  grade  or  level;  that  the  tracks  of  the  Wabash  Rail- 
road Company,  the  C.,  B.  &  Q.  Railway  Company  and  the  defendant  are  at 
right  angles  to  and  across  the  tracks  of  the  C.,  C.,  C.  &  St.  L.  Railway  Com- 
pany, about  350  feet  north  of  Sargent  street;  that  in  order  to  use  and  occupy 
Sargent  street,  under  the  terms  of  said  ordinance,  complainant  will  be  com- 
pelled to  cross  the  tracks  of  the  Wabash  Railroad  Company,  the  C.,  B.  &  Q. 
Railway  Company  and  the  defendant  in  Sargent  street,  and  of  the  C.,  C.,  C. 
&  St.  L.  Railway  Company  in  State  street;  that  the  necessity  therefor  has 
been  .publicly  known  to  the  authorities  of  said  city,  county  and  State  and 
of  said  four  railroads  for  months;  that  since  the  passing  of  said  ordinance 
complainant  has  been  openly  and  publicly  securing  its  right  of  way  and 
grading  and  constructing  its  railroad,  and  complainant  had  well  hoped  that 
the  other  railroad  corporations  would  so  unite  with  complainant  that  na 
objection  would  be  made  to  complainant  crossing  their  respective  tracks  in 
such  manner  as  to  enable  complainant  to  construct  and  operate  its  railroad 
and  comply  with  the  wishes  of  the  city  of  Litchfield  and  of  its  citizens  and 
property  owners;  that  complainant  has  applied  to  each  of  said  corporations 
to  permit  it  to  construct  and  place  at  its  sole  expense  such  necessary  cross- 
ings and  appliances  as  would  provide  grade  crossings  over  each  of  said 
railroad  tracks  and  has  offered  to  install  the  same  at  its  sole  expense  and 
without  any  interference  with  the  operation  of  the  trains  of  said  corpora- 
tion; that  it  is  entirely  practical  and  safe  to  construct  its  railroad  in  Sar- 
gent and  State  streets  across  said  track  and  so  as  not  to  interfere  with  the 
operation  of  trains  on  the  latter  or  to  increase  the  hazard  of  travel  over 
the  same,  and  that  the  railroad  of  complainant  will  be  operated  by  means 
of  single  cars;  or,  at  the  most,  by  trains  but  of  a  small  number  of  cars,  all 
capable  of  much  quicker  and  easier  control  than  steam  cars,  so  that  such 
operation  will  scarcely  add  more  to  the  danger  of  operation  of  the  other 
railroad  tracks  than  the  travel  of  an  equal  number  of  wagons  upon  said 
streets;  that  the  Wabash  Railroad  Company  has  consented  and  agreed  to 
the  construction  by  complainant  of  such  grade  crossing  with  a  connection 
by  means  of  a  "Y"  track  between  the  tracks  of  the  Wabash  Railroad  and 
complainant,  so  as  to  furnish  cars  to  be  transferred  from  one  track  to 
another,  and  has  entered  into  a  contract  to  that  effect;  that  each  of  the 
other  railroad  corporations,  and  particularly  the  defendant,  has  refused  so 
to  do,  and  threatened  to  forcibly  resist  the  placing  or  maintenance  and  opera- 
tion of  any  crossing  by  complainant  over  the  tracks  controlled  by  it  and  to 
remove  any  and  all  material  now  placed  or  which  may  hereafter  be  placed 
by  complainant  in  any  part  of  Sargent  street  which  is  occupied  with  the 
tracks  of  the  defendant;  that  the  defendant,  the  C.,  B.  &  Q.  Railroad  Com- 
pany and  the  C.,  C.,  C.  &  St.  L.  Railway  Company,  has  each  applied  to  the 
Board  of  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commissioners  of  the  State  of  Illinois  to 
act  under  the  terms  of  the  statutes  in  such  case  made  and  provided,  and  to 
compel  complainant  to  cross  said  tracks  at  some  other  points  and  upon  other 


"3 

grades  than  those  required  by  said  ordinance  and  to  order  that  complainant 
shall  go  over  or  under  said  tracks;  that  the  Wabash  Railroad  tracks  are 
between  those  of  the  defendant  and  of  the  C.,  B.  &  Q.  Railway  and  about 
one  hundred  and  seventy-five  feet  from  the  same,  respectively;  that  it  Is 
physically  impossible  to  cross  the  tracks  of  the  Wabash  Railroad  in  Sargent 
street  at  grade  and  make  such  "Y"  connection  as  complainant  has  contracted 
with  the  Wabash  Railroad  Company  to  do,  and  to  cross  the  tracks  of  the 
defendant  and  the  C.,  B.  &  Q.  Railway  Company  in  Sargent  street  other 
than  at  grade;  that  as  complainant  has  exercised  its  power  to  locate  its 
railroad  under  its  articles  of  incorporation,  it  is  advised  that  its  right  is 
exhausted  and  it  cannot  relocate  the  same  upon  another  line  so  as  to  cross 
said  tracks  at  other  points  than  those  specified  in  said  ordinance;  that  the 
defendant  is  acting  in  concert  with  such  other  corporations  in  opposing 
complainant  in  the  exercise  of  its  rights  as  a  common  carrier  and  under  the 
terms  of  said  ordinance  and  in  forcibly  resisting  the  employe's  of  said  com- 
plainant in  the  construction  of  its  railroad  and  in  threatening  to  remove 
the  material,  crossings  and  tracks  now  placed  by  complainant  in  Sargent 
street  or  which  may  hereafter  be  placed  therein,  and  in  applying  to  the 
Board  of  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commissioners  of  the  State  of  Illinois  to 
compel  complainant  to  abandon  its  rights  under  said  ordinance  and  its  right 
of  way  so  acquired  and  to  cross  over  or  under  the  tracks  of  said  company 
outside  the  city  of  Litchfield  and  at  a  point  where  it  has  no  right  of  way, 
and  where  its  right  to  acquire  the  same  is  doubtful  in  law;  that  its  conduct 
is  unreasonable  and  in  fraud  of  the  rights  of  complainant  and  is  pursuant 
to  a  conspiracy  between  it  and  other  corporations  to  prevent  complainant 
from  entering  the  business  portion  of  the  city  of  Litchfield  as  a  competitor 
in  business,  and  to  enable  them  to  maintain  their  present  monopoly  of  the 
business  of  common  carriers;  that  such  conduct  deprives  complainant  of 
its  property  without  due  process  of  law,  and  will  constitute  a  permanent 
and  irreparable  injury  to  complainant;  that  complainant  expressly  denies 
that  the  Board  of  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commissioners  have  any  right 
or  authority  to  interfere  with  complainant  in  the  construction  of  its  road 
in  Sargent  street  under  said  ordinance. 

The  prayer  of  the  bill  is  that  a  temporary  injunction  issue  against  the 
Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company,  its  agents,  etc.,  enjoining  them  and  each 
of  them  from  forcibly  or  otherwise  removing  from  or  in  any  manner  obstruct- 
ing complainant  or  its  agents  in  completing,  placing  or  using  any  crossing, 
rails,  ties;  fish  plates,  bolts,  nuts,  poles,  wires  or  other  appliances  in  Sargent 
street  as  a  part  of  any  crossing  of  the  railroad  of  complainant  over  any 
railroad  track  of  the  defendant  in  said  street,  and  also  from  further  prose- 
cuting or  making  before  the  Board  of  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission- 
ers of  the  State  of  Illinois  any  objections  to  the  crossing  by  complainant  of 
the  tracks  of  the  defendant  in  Sargent  street  in  the  manner  prescribed  by 
said  ordinance;  and  upon  a  hearing  that  said  temporary  injunction  may 
be  made-  perpetual. 

Attached  to  and  made  a  part  of  said  bill  of  complaint  is  a  copy  of  the 
ordinance  referred  to  therein,  which  grants  to  the  St.  Louis  and  Springfield 
Railway  Company  and  its  assigns,  the  right  to  construct,  maintain  and 
operate  for  fifty  years  a  railroad  along  certain  public  streets,  including  Sar- 
gent street,  from  State  street  to  Clinton  street,  which  is  to  be  operated  by 
electricity  or  any  other  motive  power  permitted  by  the  city  except  steam, 
and  is  to  be  used  for  the  transportation  of  passengers,  baggage,  U.  S.  mail, 
express  matter  and  freight.  It  provides  that  the  tracks  shall  be  composed 
of  "T"  rails  and  shall  be  laid  on  the  grade  now  established  or  hereafter 
established.  It  also  provides  that  "no  right  or  privilege  hereby  conferred 
shall  be  deemed  or  considered  so  as  to  conflict  or  interfere  with  any  rights 
or  privileges  now  held,  possessed  or  enjoyed  by  any  person,  company  or  cor- 
poration under  any  privileges  or  franchises  heretofore  granted  by  said  city, 
to  which  rights  all  the  rights  hereby  conferred  shall  be  subject."  It  also 
provides  that  "it  is  expressly  stipulated,  however,  that  the  work  of  construct- 
ing said  track  and  appliances  therewith  connected  shall  not  be  commenced 

—8  O 


H4 

until  the  said  railway  company,  its  successors  or  assigns  shall  have  com- 
pleted and  ready  for  operation  a  continuous  line  of  interurban  railway 
from  Hillsboro  or  Staunton  to  the  limits  of  said  city  of  Litchfield  at  some 
point  where  same  connects  with  the  right  of  way,  as  mentioned  in  section 
one  of  this  ordinance." 

Puterbaugh,  P.  J.: 

The  principal  and  controlling  question  presented  by  this  record  for  deter- 
mination is  as  to  the  proper  construction  and  effect  of  section  209  of  chapter 
114  of  the  statute  entitled,  "An  Act  in  relation  to  the  crossing  of  one  railroad 
by  another  and  to  prevent  danger  to  life  and  property  from  grades  crossings," 
which  reads  as  follows: 

"That  hereafter  any  railroad  company  desiring  to  cross  with  its  tracks 
the  main  line  of  another  railroad  company,  shall  construct  the  crossing  at 
such  place  and  in  such  manner  as  will  not  unnecessarily  impede  or  endanger 
the  travel  or  transportation  upon  the  railway  so  crossed.  If  in  any  case 
objection  be  made  to  the  place  or  mode  of  crossing  proposed  by  the  company 
desiring  the  same,  either  party  may  apply  to  the  Board  of  Railroad  and 
Warehouse  Commissioners,  and  it  shall  be  their  duty  to  view  the  ground  and 
give  all  parties  interested  an  opportunity  to  be  heard.  After  full  investiga- 
tion, and  with  due  regard  to  safety  of  life  and  property,  said  board  shall 
give  a  decision  prescribing  the  place  where  and  the  manner  in  which  said 
crossing  shall  be  made,  but  in  all  cases  the  compensation  to  be  paid  for 
property  actually  required  for  the  crossing,  and  all  damages  resulting  there- 
from, shall  be  determined  in  the  manner  provided  by  law  in  case  the  parties 
fail  to  agree."  (Rev.  Stat.  1903,  page  1479.) 

It  is  insisted  by  appellant  that  under  said  Act,  where  objection  to  such 
crossing  is  made,  a  railroad  company  organized  under  the  General  Railroad 
Act  of  this  State  has  no  right  to  cross  with  its  railroad  track  the  main  track 
of  another  railroad  at  a  particular  point  selected  by  the  company  desiring 
to  cross,  unless  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  approves  the  place 
and  manner  of  the  proposed  crossing.  Appellee,  on  the  contrary,  contends 
that  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  can  only  be 
invoked  where,  the  proposed  crossing -is  made  in  violation  of  the  provisions 
of  such  Act;  that  inasmuch  as  the  record  shows  that  the  crossing  in  con- 
troversy is  constructed  "at  such  place  and  in  such  manner  as  will  not  neces- 
sarily impede  or  endanger  the  travel  and  transportation  upon  the  railway 
so  crossed,"  the  intervention  of  the  Warehouse  Commission  cannot  be  in- 
voked. We  do  not  so  construe  the  Act  in  question.  Appellee  having  been 
organized  as  a  railroad  corporation,  under  chapter  114  of  the  statutes,  is 
subject  to  all  the  provisions  of  the  same,  and  is  burdened  with  the  same 
obligations,  restrictions  and  limitations  as  other  railroad  corporations  organ- 
ized under  such  Act,  without  regard  to  what  motive  power  is  or  may  be 
employed  in  the  operation  of  its  trains.  (Goddard  vs.  Ry.  Co.,  104  111.  App., 
526;  Malott  vs.  Ry.  Co.,  108  Fed.  Rep.,  313.) 

The  clear  purpose  of  the  Act,  when  "its  title,  language,  the  existing  cir- 
cumstances and  contemporaneous  conditions,  the  evil  sought  to  be  remedied, 
its  necessity  and  the  general  objects  sought  to  be  attained  are  considered,  is 
to  require  that  crossings  of  this  character  shall  be  made  at  such  places  and 
in  such  manner  as  will  not  unnecessarily  impede  or  endanger  travel  or 
transportation  upon  the  railroad  crossed,  and  that  when  the  question  whether 
or  not  a  crossing  is  made  or  proposed  to  be  made,  complies  with  the  statute 
in  this  regard  is  raised  by  objection,  such  question  is  relegated  to  the  Rail- 
road and  Warehouse  Commission  for  its  final  decision  and  is  not  one  of  fact 
to  be  determined  by  the  courts. 

We  are  inclined  to  construe  the  statute  as  meaning  and  intending,  not 
that  the  commission  shall  indicate  a  particular  place  and  no  other  at  which 
the  crossing  shall  be  made,  but  that  they  shall  have  discretionery  power 
only  to  prevent  its  being  made  at  any  place  or  in  such  manner  as  will 
unnecessarily  impede  or  endanger  travel  on  the  existing  line;  that  while, 
where  objection  is  made,  the  commission  may  determine  whether  or  not  a 
particular  crossing  desired  will  be  or  is  dangerous,  in  case  of  an  adverse 
decision,  the  company  seeking  to  cross  still  has  the  right  to  select  another 


"5 

place  or  manner  of  crossing  which,  in  case  of  the  consent  of  the  municipality 
and  further  objection,  must  in  turn  be  approved  by  the  commission.  In 
other  words,  the  power  conferred  upon  the  commission  is  in  its  nature  that 
of  veto  merely.  If  this  construction  be  reasonable  and  warranted,  the  exclu- 
sive power  of  the  municipality  over  the  streets  within  its  corporate  limits 
is  not  interfered  with  by  the  Act.  Its  power  to  control  the  location  of  a 
railroad  and  to  protect  property  and  persons  against  injury  still  remains,  no 
positive  power  being  conferred  upon  the  commission  to  permit  a  crossing  to 
be  made  contrary  to  the  will  of  the  municipal  authorities.  Nor  is  the  con- 
stitutional requirement  that  the  consent  of  the  local  authorities  of  a  munici- 
pality must  first  be  obtained  before  the  General  Assembly  shall  grant  the 
right  to  construct  a  street  railroad  therein  to  any  extent  thereby  impinged 
UFon.  True  it  is  that  the  commission  may,  in  their  discretion,  prevent  any 
crossing  whatever  to  be  made  within  the  limits  of  a  municipality,  and  if 
such  interdictive  authority  can  be  said  to  abridge  the  exclusive  jurisdiction 
of  a  city  over  its  streets  conferred  by  the  "Cities,  Villages  and  Towns"  Act, 
section  209  must  be  held,  we  think,  to  impliedly  repeal  or  modify  such  part 
of  such  former  Act  as  is  inconsistent  therewith  or  repugnant  thereto.  Fur- 
thermore, we  think  that  such  section  miay  be  upheld  as  an  exercise  of  the 
inherent  power  of  the  State  to  enact  all  police  laws  necessary  and  proper 
to  secure  and  protect  the  life  and  property  of  the  general  public,  including 
not  only  those  who  may  be  resident  of  a  particular  municipality,  but  all 
who  travel  upon  or  entrust  their  property  to  the  custody  of  railroads.  To 
this  extent  the  local  police  power  of  municipalities  is  clearly  subordinate  to 
that  of  the  State. 

In  Malott  vs.  Ry.  Co.,  108  Fed.  Rep.,  313,  appellee,  an  electric  railroad 
company,  organized  under  the  General  Railroad  Act,  sought  to  cross  their 
track  with  that  of  a  railroad  of  which  appellant  was  receiver.  It  is  there 
held  that  section  209,  supra,  must  be  construed  as  in  pari  materia  with  sec- 
tions 18  and  20  of  the  Act  of  March  1,  1872,  which  provides  generally  for 
the  exercise  of  power  of  eminent  domain  by  railroads,  and  as  making  a  valid 
provision  for  the  modification  of  procedure  under  such  prior  statute,  so  far 
as  relates  to  the  place  and  manner  of  constructing  railroad  crossings,  in  the 
interest  of  greater  safety. 

It  is  insisted  that  if  the  foregoing  construction  be  adopted,  it  will  here- 
after be  practically  impossible  for  electric  railways  to  secure  an  entrance 
to  any  of  our  cities  and  villages;  that  such  railway  can  not  acquire  the 
right  to  use  any  street  of  a  city  or  village,  for  the  reason  that  interested 
steam  railroad  companies  can  easily  purchase  the  refusal  of  permits  from 
property  owners  along  a  street  and  thereby  prevent  the  use  of  the  street  by 
an  electric  railway;  and  that,  if  before  any  street  can  be  used,  the  commis- 
sioners must  locate  the  point  of  crossing  for  each  railway  to  be  crossed,  and 
the  electric  railway  must  acquire  the  frontage  signatures,  it  will  mean  that 
the  existing  monopolies  will  be  preserved,  and  the  public  cannot  have  the 
transportation  facilities  demanded  by  it.  In  answer  to  such  suggestion  it 
may  be  said  that  if  the  hypothesis  suggested  be  reasonable,  and  the  powers 
granted  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  are  too  vast  and  may  be 
exercised  in  arbitrary  manner,  relief  should  and  must  be  sought  from  the 
General  Assembly,  and  not  in  the  courts. 

After  the  present  appeal  was  perfected,  appellee  filed  a  motion  in  this 
Court  to  dismiss  the  same  for  the  reason  that,  as  alleged,  appellant,  after 
the  entry  of  the  order  appealed  from,  interposed  and  urged  in  the  Circuit 
Court  a  motion  to  dissolve  the  injunction.  Said  motion  must  be  overruled. 
Facts  tending  to  show  a  release  of  errors  cannot  be  considered  on  a  motjon 
to  dismiss  in  the  absence  of  a  plea  of  release  errors.  (Ry.  Co.  vs.  Riegel, 
161  111.,  638;  Crosby  vs.  Kiest,  135  111.,  458;  Trustees  vs.  Hihler,  85  111.,  409.) 

The  foregoing  views  render  a  determination  of  the  other  questions  raised 
and  argued  by  appellant  unnecessary.  The  interlocutory  order  granting  the 
injunction  will  be  reversed  and  the  cause  remanded  to  the  city  court,  with 
directions  to  dismiss  the  present  bill  for  want  of  equity. 

Decree  reversed  and  remanded  with  directions. 


BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 


Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 

vs. 
St.  Louis  &  Northeastern  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  Objecting   to  Grade  Crossing  at  Fifteenth  Street,  East  St.  Louis. 
Petition  filed  Jan.  20,  1906. 

Jan.  8,  1907',  case  dismissed  on  request  of  petitioner. 
See  page  23,  report  of  1906. 


Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. 

vs. 
Chicago,  Bloomington  &  Decatur  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  Objecting  to  Grade  Crossing  at  Clinton,  III. 

Petition  filed  Feb.  3,  1906. 

Settled  by  agreement  and  case  dismissed. 

See  page  24,  report  of  1906. 


Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. 

vs. 
Aurora,  Elgin  &  Chicago  Ry.  Co. 

Petition   Objecting  to  Grade   Crossing  at  Hillside,  III. 

Petition  filed  Feb.  9,  1906. 

Aug.  28,  1906,  case  dismissed  on  request  of  petitioner. 

See  page  24,  report  of  1906. 


Chicago  &  Alton  Ry.  Co. 

vs. 
Danville  &  Edwardsville  Terminal  Ry.   Co. 

Petition  Objecting  to  Crossing  at  Venice,  III. 

Petition  filed  May  21,  1906. 

March  5,  1907,  case  dismissed  on  motion  of  petitioner. 

See  page  31,  report  of  1906. 


BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 


In  re  Petition  of  Illinois  Grain  Dealers'  Association. 

At  the  August  term,  1905.  of  the  citv  court  of  East  St.  Louis  an  order 
and  decree  was  entered  in  a  certain  cause  then  pending  in  said  rourt 
wherein  the  People  of  the  State  of  Illinois  ex  rel.  The  Railroad  and  Ware- 


house  Commissioners  were  complainants  and  Jacob  Koerner  et  al.  were 
defendants,  which  among  other  things  provided  as  follows: 

"The  tare  to  be  allowed  in  each  case  is  by  agreement  to  be  fifty  (50) 
pounds  per  car  for  each  car.  containing  forty  thousand  (40,000)  pounds  or 
under  and  one  hundred  (100)  pounds  per  car  for  each  car  containing  over 
forty  thousand  (40,000)  pounds." 

In  compliance  with  this  order  and  decree,  this  commission,  on  the  9th 
day  of  August,  1905,  entered  the  following  order: 

"ORDER  OF  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  APPROVING  AGREEMENT 
BETWEEN  RECEIVERS  OF  GRAIN  AND  OPERATOBS  OF  ELEVATORS  OF  EAST  ST.  LOUIS 
AND  VENICE,  ILLINOIS,  WITH  REFERENCE  TO  ALLOWANCE  OF  TARE. 

"Whereas,  There  has  been  a  difference  between  the  receivers  of  grain  and 
operators  of  elvators  at  East  St.  Louis  and  Venice,  Illinois,  with  reference 
to  an  allowance  of  tare  to  the  operators  of  elevators;  and, 

"Whereas,  Said  receivers  of  grain  and  operators  of  elevators  have  settled 
their  differences  by  mutual  agrement  whereby  tare  of  fifty  pounds  is  to 
be  allowed  on  each  car  of  grain  weighing  forty  thousand  (40,000)  pounds 
and  under,  and  one  hundred  (100)  pounds  on  each  car  weighing  over  forty 
thousand  (40,000)  pounds;  and, 

"Whereas,  This  commission  has  investigated  the  question  of  allowance  of 
tare  and  finds  that  the  agreement  entered  into  between  said  receivers  of 
grain  and  operators  of  elevators  as  reasonable  and  just; 

"It  is  therefore  ordered  by  this  commission,  that  said  agreement  between 
receivers  of  grain  and  operators  of  elevators  at  East  St.  Louis  and  Venice, 
Illinois,  be  and  the  same  is  hereby  approved.  The  official  weighers  of  grain 
at  East  St.  Louis  and  Venice,  Illinois,  are  hereby  instructed  to  make  said 
allowance  and  they  are  authorized  to  stamp  on  certificates  issued  by  them 
the  following: 

"  'The  deduction  for  tare  shown  by  this  certificate  is  by  agreement  between 
elevators  and  grain  receivers,  approved  by  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse 
Commission  of  Illinois.'  " 

After  the  promulgation  of  the  above  order  of  the  commission,  the  official 
weighers  of  grain  at  East  St.  Louis  and  Venice,  Illinois,  deducted  from  the 
actual  weight  of  each  car  of  grain  received  the  "tare"  authorized  by  the 
order. 

Notice  of  the  application  of  the  representatives  of  the  complainant  for  a 
cancellation  of  this  order  having  been  given  to  all  parties  interested,  the 
matter  was  set  down  for  hearing  at  the  office  of  the  commission  at  Spring- 
field, Illinois,  on  March  5,  1907,  at  which  time  and  place  a  full  hearing  was 
accorded  the  parties  in  interest. 

In  addition  to  the  evidence  offered  and  the  arguments  presented  the  fol- 
lowing communication  from  the  board  of  directors  of  the  Merchants' 
Exchange  of  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  was  received: 

"ST.  Louis,  March  2,  1907. 
"To  the  Honorable  the  Board  of  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commissioners  of 

the  State  of  Illinois,  Springfield,  III.: 

"GENTLEMEN — The  board  of  directors  of  the  Merchants'  Exchange  of  St. 
Louis  respectfully  petition  your  honorable  body  to  rescind  the  order  per- 
mitting the  deduction  of  the  so-called  'tare'  on  grain  unloaded  at  elevators 
at  East  St.  Louis  and  adjacent  points  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Rail- 
road and  Warehouse  Commissioners  of  Illinois. 

"Trusting  that  you  will  see  the  reasonableness  of  this  request,  we  remain 

"Yours  very  truly, 

"THE  BOARD  OF  DIRECTORS  OF  THE  MERCHANTS'  EXCHANGE, 

"By  GEO.  H.  PLANT,  President. 

"GEO.  H.  MORGAN,  Secretary." 

After  a  full  consideration  of  the  facts,  we  have  arrived  at  the  conclusion 
that  no  reason  now  exists  for  making  an  arbitrary  deduction  from  the 
actual  weight  of  all  grain  weighed  at  East  St.  Louis  and  Venice.  On  the 
other  hand,  when  an  unusual  amount  of  dirt  or  foreign  matter  is  found 


inseparably   mixed   with   the   grain,   reasonable   deductions   should   be   made 
on  account  thereof. 

It  is  therefore  ordered,  That  the  order  of  this  commission,  entered  on  the 
9th  day  of  August,  1905,  and  hereinbefore  set  forth  be  and  the  same  is 
hereby  set  aside,  cancelled  and  annulled.  And  it  is  further  ordered,  that 
no  dockage  from  actual  weights  shall  be  allowed  on  incoming  or  outgoing 
grain  at  East  St.  Louis  and  Venice,  except  when  unusual  dirt  or  foreign 
matter  is  inseparably  mixed  with  the  grain,  in  which  case  it  shall  be  the 
duty  of  the  official  weighers  of  grain  to  determine  the  amount  of  unusual 
dirt  or  foreign  matter  and  to  weigh  the  entire  contents  of  the  car.  All 
allowances  for  unusual  dirt  or  foreign  matter  shall  appear  on  the  face  of 
the  certificate  issued  for  such  car  or  cars. 

Dated  this  20th  day  of  March,  A.  D.  1907,  at  Springfield,  111. 

[Signed]       W.  H.  BOYS,  Chairman, 

J.  A.  WILLOUGHBY,  Commissioner. 


Hammond  Belt  Ry.  Co. 

vs. 
South  Chicago  &  Southern  Railroad  Co. 

Petition  to  Cross  at  Grade  at  Calumet  Park. 


Petition  filed  July  27,  1906. 

Case  still  pending. 

See  page  31,  report  of  1906. 


Chicago  &  Alton  Ry.  Co.  and 
Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  Ry.  Co. 

vs. 

The  Jacksonville  Railway  and  Light  Co.  and 
The  Illinois  Western  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  Objecting  to  Crossing  at  Grade  in  State  Street,  Jacksonville,  III. 
Petition  filed  July  30,  1906. 


Chicago  &  Alton  Ry.  Co. 

vs. 

The  Jacksonville  Railway  and  Light  Co.  and 
The  Illinois  Western  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  Objecting  to  Grade  Crossing  Two  and  One-half  Miles  South  of  Jack- 
sonville. 

Petition  filed  August  10,  1906. 

April  3,  1907,  case  dismissed  on  motion  of  petitioner. 

See  page  32,  report  of  1906. 


South  Chicago  &  Southern  H.  R.  Co., 

vs. 
Hammond  Belt  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  Objecting  to  Crossing  at  Grade  near  Calumet  Park. 

Petition  filed  November  3,  1906. 

Case  still  pending. 

See  page  33,  report  of  1906. 


Chicago  &  Alton  Ry.  Co. 

vs. 
St.   Louis  &   Springfield   Ry.   Co. 

Petition  Objecting  to  Grade  Crossing  on  West  Street  in  Carlinville,  III. 

Petition  filed  November  28,  1906. 

Case  still  pending. 

See  page  33,  report  of  1906. 


Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co.  and 
Baltimore  &  Ohio  Southwestern  R.  R.  Co. 
Southern  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  filed  December  8,  1906. 

Case  heard  and  taken  under  advisement. 

See  page  33,  report  of  1906. 


Citizens  of  Granite  City,  111. 

vs. 

Chicago  &  Alton  R.  R.  Co. 

Cleveland,  Cincinnati,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co. 
Chicago,  Peoria  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co.  and 
The  Wabash  Railroad  Co. 

Complaint  of  Lack  of  Proper  Facilities  for  Handling  L.  C.  L.  Shipments  at 

Granite  City,  III. 

Petition  filed  December  17,  1906. 

Railroads  agree  to  furnish  the  facilities  required  and  case  dismissed. 

See  page  34,  report  1906. 


Chicago  &  Southern  Traction  Co. 

vs. 
Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. 

Petition  to  Cross  at  Grade  at  157th  Street,  Harvey,  III. 

Original  order  for  subway  crossing  entered  Jan.  18,  1906. 

See  pages  44  and  45  report  of  1905. 

The  following  amended  order  was  entered  March  7,  1907: 


120 

Chicago  &  Southern  Traction  Co.,  Petitioner, 

vs. 
Illinois  Central  Railroad  Co.,  Respondent. 

Grossing  at  157th  Street,  Harvey. 

APPEARANCES: 

CHARLES  F.  DAVIS,  Attorney  for  Petitioner. 
JOHN  G.  DRENNAN,  Dist.  Attorney  for  Respondent. 

The  time  having  expired  for  the  compliance  with  the  previous  order  of 
the  commission,  to  install  a  subway  crossing  by  the  petitioner  across  the  main 
line  of  the  respondent  company,  at  157th  street,  Harvey,  and 

Now  comes  the  petitioner,  the  Chicago  &  Southern  Traction  Company,  by 
Charles  F.  Davies,  its  attorney,  and  for  various  reasons  shows  to  the  commis- 
sion that  it  has  been  unable  to  comply  with  the  original  order  of  the  commis- 
sion, and  prays  that  the  time  may  be  extended. 

The  attorney  for  the  respondent  not  interposing  any  objection  to  the 
extension, 

It  is  therefore  ordered  by  the  commission  that  the  Chicago  &  Southern 
Traction  Company,  the  petitioner  herein,  be  granted  until  the  first  day  of 
November,  1907,  to  comply  with  the  original  order  of  the  commission  of 
date,  1906,  and  that  the  commission  shall  retain  jurisdiction  herein  of  the 
subject  matter,  and  the  parties  to  this  proceeding  until  said  subway  is  fully 
completed. 

[Signed.]     W.  H.  BOYS, 

B.    A.    ECKHABT, 
t  J.     A.     WlLLOUGHBY, 

Commissioners. 
Dated  at  Springfield,  111.,  March  7,  1907. 


Michigan  Central  R.  R.  Co., 

vs. 
Chicago  &  Southern  Traction  Co. 

Petition  Objecting  to  Grade  Crossing  at  Chicago  Heights,  III. 

Petition  filed  December  8,  1905. 

Original  order  entered  March  14,  1906. 

See  report  of  1906,  page  25. 

Time  for  compliance  with  order  extended  by  order  of  the  commission. 


Elgin,  Joliet  &  Eastern  Ry.  Co., 

vs. 
Chicago  &  Southern  Traction  Co. 

Petition  Objecting  to  Grade  Crossing  at  Chicago  Heights,  III. 

Petition  filed  July  2,  1906. 
Original  order  entered  September  13,  1906. 
See  page  30,  report  of  1906. 

Time  for  compliance  with  this  order  extended  by  order  of  the  commission 
to  Jan.  11,  1908. 

Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co., 

vs. 
Coal  Belt  Electric  Railway  Co. 

Petition  Objecting  to  Grade  Crossing  in  the  City  of  Herrin,  III. 

Petition  filed  Nov.  6,  1906. 

Place  of  crossing  viewed  by  the  commission  and  case  heard. 

July  22,  1907,  the  following  orders  were  entered  of  record: 


121 

BEFORE  THE  RAJLKOAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 


Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co., 

vs. 
Coal  Belt  Electric  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  to  Prevent  Manner  and  Location  of  Crossing  as  Proposed. 

APPEARANCES ! 

MR.  JOHN  G.  DRENNAN,  for  Petitioner. 
HON.  W.  S.  FORMAN,  for  Respondent. 


This  is  a  petition  of  the  Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co.  filed  November  6,  1906, 
in  which  it  objects  to  the  manner  and  location  of  a  proposed  crossing  of  a 
track  of  the  Coal  Belt  Electric  Railway  Company  with  the  tracks  of  the 
petitioner  in  the  city  of  Herrin. 

The  petitioner,  the  Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co.  avers  that  it  is  a  railroad 
corporation  duly  organized  under  and  by  virtue  of  the  laws  of  the  State  of 
Illinois;  that  it  owns  and  operates  a  main  line  of  railroad  running  through 
the  city  of  Herrin,  Williamson  county,  Illinois,  and  across  a  certain  street 
in  said  city  known  as  Park  avenue;  that  the  Coal  Belt  Electric  Railway 
Company  is  also  a  railroad  corporation  organized  under  and  by  virtue  of 
the  laws  of  the  State  of  Illinois;  that  it  has  practically  constructed  its  road 
and  that  it  is  attempting  to  cross  at  grade  with  the  track  of  its  proposed 
main  line,  the  tracks  of  the  petitioner,  in  said  Park  avenue;  that  such  a 
crossing  would  be  dangerous  to  life  and  property,  and  that  the  respondent 
is  attempting  to  make  such  a  crossing  without  the  permission  of  this  com- 
mission. The  petitioner  objects  to  the  place  and  manner  of  crossing  as 
proposed,  and  prays  this  commission  to  take  cognizance  of  the  complaint 
and  dispose  of  the  case  in  the  usual  manner  to  the  end  that  it  may  render  a 
decision  in  the  premises  as  the  merits  of  the  case  may  require. 

A  copy  of  the  petition  was  served  on  the  respondent,  the  Coal  Belt  Elec- 
tric Ry.  Co.  November  6,  1906.  As  provided  by  law  the  site  of  the  proposed 
crossing  was  viewed  by  the  commission  on  December  19,  1906.  Notice  was 
served  on  December  20,  1906,  setting  the  case  for  hearing  in  Springfield  on 
January  15,  1907. 

In  the  answer  of  the  respondent  filed  January  14,  1907,  it  admits  certain 
of  the  things  alleged  in  the  petition.  The  respondent's  answer  also  states 
that  it  is  authorized  by  ordinance  duly  passed  by  the  authorities  of  the  city 
of  Herrin,  to  use  Park  avenue  in  said  city  of  Herrin  for  street  railroad  pur- 
poses; that  the  tracks  of  its  road  will  be  laid  wholly  in  the  street,  which  is 
100  feet  wide;  that  the  grade  of  the  street  is  level  for  a  considerable  dis- 
tance on  each  side  of  the  Illinois  Central  tracks,  and  that  the  only  feasible 
way  by  which  a  crossing  can  be  effected  is  at  grade. 

The  case  came  on  for  hearing  January  15,  1907,  upon  the  oral  testimony 
offered  by  the  respective  parties  and  a  stipulation  as  to  certain  facts. 

By  agreement  of  all  parties  concerned,  it  was  conceded  that  a  grade  cross- 
ing at  the  point  proposed  was  the  only  practicable  way  of  effecting  the 
crossing.  This  agreement  coincided  with  the  views  of  the  commission,  where- 
upon this  commission  directed  the  respondent  to  prepare  and  submit  to  the 
petitioner  for  its  approval  a  plan  for  an  interlocking  device  to  be  installed 
and  operated  at  said  crossing,  and  upon  the  approval  of  said  plan  by  the 
petitioner  to  submit  the  same  to  this  commission. 

On  July  9,  1907,  the  respondent  submitted  a  plan  of  an  interlocking  sys- 
tem to  be  installed  at  said  crossing  which  has  the  approval  of  the  petitioner, 
and  the  same  appearing  to  be  in  all  respects  an  adequate  protection  at  said 
crossing. 


122 

It  is  therefore  decided  and  ordered  that  the  respondent,  the  Coal  Belt 
Electric  Ry.  Co.  be  allowed  to  cross  at  grade  with  its  track,  as  located  in 
the  center  of  Park  avenue,  in  the  city  of  Herrin,  Williamson  county,  Illinois, 
the  tracks  of  the  petitioner,  the  Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co.,  and  that  said 
crossing  shall  be  effected  at  the  entire  expense  of  the  respondent. 

It  is  further  decided  and  ordered  that  the  respondent,  the  Coal  Belt  Elec- 
tric Ry.  Co.  shall  install  and  maintain  at  its  own  expense  an  interlocking 
system  at  said  crossing  substantially  in  accordance  with  plans  submitted 
July  9,  1907,  and  now  on  file  in  this  office. 

It  is  further  decided  and  ordered  that  the  cost  of  operation  of  said  inter- 
locking system  shall  be  divided  equally  between  the  parties  hereto 

Dated  this  22d  day  of  July,  1907. 

[Signed.]     W.  H.  BOYS, 

B.    A.    ECKHABT, 

J.     A.     WlLLOUGHBY. 

Commissioners. 


BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  ILLINOIS. 


«  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company, 

vs. 
Coal  Belt  Electric  Railway  Company. 

Supplemental  Petition. 

APPEARANCES : 

MR.  JOHN  G.  DRENNAN,  for  Petitioner. 
HON.  W.  F.  FORMAN,  for  Respondent. 


On  the  22d  day  of  July,  1907,  an  order  was  entered  in  the  above  entitled 
cause  authorizing  the  respondent  to  cross  at  grade  wjth  its  track  as  located 
in  the  center  of  Park  avenue,  in  the  city  of  Herrin,  Williamson  county, 
Illinois,  the  tracks  of  the  petitioner,  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company, 
and  it  was  required  to  install  and  maintain  an  interlocking  system  at  said 
crossing  substantially  in  accordance  with  certain  plans  which  were  submitted 
to  the  commission  on  July  9,  1907. 

On  August  29,  1907,  the  petitioner  filed  its  supplemental  petition  in  said 
cause  alleging  in  substance  that  on  August  27,  1907,  the  respondent  filed  a 
bill  in  the  Circuit  Court  of  Williamson  county,  Illinois,  in  which  it  prayed 
for  and,  upon  the  order  of  the  Master  in  Chancery  of  said  court,  obtained 
an  injunction  enjoining  the  petitioner  from  in  any  manner  preventing  said 
respondent  from  putting  in  the  said  proposed  crossing;  that  said  petitioner 
did  on  August  27,  1907,  with  force  and  arms  actually  put  in  at  said  place 
mentioned  in  the  former  order  of  this  commission,  the  crossing  therein 
authorized;  that  no  interlocking  device  has  been  installed  at  the  said  cross- 
ing, and  that  petitioner  is  informed  and  believes,  and  therefore  charges  the 
fact  to  be,  that  the  respondent  intends  to  commence  the  operation  of  its 
trains  over  said  crossing  without  installing  the  interlocking  plant  mentioned 
in  the  order  of  the  commission  on  July  22,  1907. 

Upon  the  filing  of  this  supplemental  petition  a  citation  was  issued  to  the 
respondent  requiring  it  to  appear  before  the  commission  on  September  3, 
1907,  and  answer  said  supplemental  petition. 

On  September  3,  1907,  the  parties  appeared  before  the  commission  at  its 
office  in  Springfield,  Illinois,  where  the  charges  in  the  supplemental  petition 
were  admitted  by  the  respondent  to  be  true,  but  it  was  contended  that  the 
respondent  had  no  intention  of  operating  trains  over  said  crossing  until  it 


123 

had  first  complied  with  the  former  order  of  this  commission.  It  appeared 
from  the  statements  made  that  the  respondent  was  constructing,  or  about  to 
construct,  a  depot  building  on  Park  avenue  near  the  Illinois  Central  tracks, 
and  permission  was  asked  to  transfer  cars  over  said  crossing  containing 
material  for  said  proposed  depot  by  horse  power. 

It  was  further  contended  by  the  petitioner  that  it  owned  a  right  of  way 
one  hundred  feet  wide  over  and  across  Park  avenue,  and  that  the  respond- 
ent had  no  legal  right  to  cross  its  tracks  without  first  condemning  a  right 
of  way.  This,  of  course,  presents  a  question  upon  which  this  commission 
has  no  power  to  pass.  The  former  order  of  the  commission  authorizing  the 
crossing  to  be  constructed  was,  of  course,  upon  the  condition  that  the  respond- 
ent obtained  the  necessary  right  of  way  by  agreement  or  by  condemnation 
proceedings.  On  the  question  of  whether  the  petitioner  has  any  rights  in 
Park  avenue,  which  the  respondent  would  be  required  to  acquire,  either  by 
purchase  or  condemnation  before  constructing  this  crossing,  we  do  not 
express  any  opinion. 

It  is  therefore  ordered  and  decided  by  the  commission  that  the  respondent 
refrain  from  operating  cars  or  trains  over  said  crossing  until  it  has  complied 
with  the  requirements  of  the  former  order  of  this  commission  entered  on 
July  22,  1907,  except  that  it  is  authorized  for  the  period  of  sixty  days  from 
this  date  to  transfer  cars  loaded  with  material  to  be  used  in  the  construc- 
tion of  respondent's  depot,  over  and  across  said  crossing  by  animal  power. 
Dated  this  third  day  of  September,  A.  D.  1907. 

W.   H.   BOYS,   Chairman. 

J.    A.    WILLOUGHBY,    Commissioner. 

B.   A.   ECKHART,   Commissioner. 


Sparta  Gas  and  Electric  Co. 

vs. 
Illinois  Southern  Ry.  Co. 

Complaint  of  Excessive  Switching  Charges  at  Sparta,  III. 

Petition  filed  January  3,  1907. 

Case  heard  before  the  commission  and  taken  under  advisement. 


Toledo,  St.  Louis  &  Western  R.  R.  Co., 

vs. 
St.  Louis  &  Illinois  Belt  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  Objecting  to  Grade  Crossing  at  Edwardsville,  III. 

Petition  filed  Jan.  18,  1907. 

Place  of  proposed  crossing  viewed  by  commission. 

Case  dismissed  on  request  of  petitioners. 


St.  Louis  &  Illinois  Belt  Ry.  Co., 

vs. 
Toledo,  St.  Louis  and  Western  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  to  Cross  at  Grade  Near  Edivardsville,  III. 

Petition  filed  Jan.  21,  1907. 

Place  of  proposed  crossing  viewed  by  commission. 

Case  dismissed  on  request  of  petitioner. 


124 

Cairo  &  Thebes  R.  R.  Co. 

vs. 

Eastern  Illinois  &  Missouri  R.  R.  Co.  and 
Chicago  &  Eastern  Illinois  R  .R.  Co. 

Petition  to  Cross  at  Grade  Near  Santa  Fe,  III. 

Petition  filed  Jan.  23,  1907. 

Feb.  13,  1907,  place  of  proposed  crossing  viewed  by  the  commission. 
March  1,   1907,  petition  of   Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co.  to  be  made  party 
defendant  granted. 

March  13,  1907,  case  heard  by  commission. 

April  22,  1907,  order  of  commission  entered  of  record  as  follows: 

Cairo  &  Thebes  Railroad  Company 

vs. 

Eastern  Illinois  and  Missouri  Railroad  Co. 
Chicago  and  Eastern  Illinois  R.  R.  Co. 
and  Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. 

Petition  to  Cross  at  Grade. 

J   M.  HAMH,  AND  WM.  S.  DEWEY,  for  Petitioner. 
E.  H.  SENEFF,  for  C.  &  E.  I.  R.  R.  Co. 
JOHN  G.  DRENNAN,  for  I.  C.  R.  R.  Co. 
WALTER  WARDER,  for  Cairo  Commercial  Club. 

The  material  allegations  contained  in  the  petition  in  the  case,  which  was 
filed  in  the  office  of  the  commission  on  January  23,  1907,  are  as  follows: 

The  petitioner,  the  Cairo  and  Thebes  Railroad  Company,  is  a  steam  rail- 
road corporation,  organized  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  with 
power  to  construct,  maintain  and  operate  a  railroad  from  the  city  of  Cairo, 
in  Alexander  county,  in  a  northwesterly  direction  to  the  village  of  Thebes, 
in  the  same  county,  a  distance  of  about  24  miles,  and  that  said  railroad  is 
now  being  constructed;  that  the  Eastern  Illinois  and  Missouri  Railroad  Com- 
pany is  a  steam  railroad  corporation  organized  under  the  laws  of  the  State 
of  Illinois  and  is  the  owner  of  a  line  of  railroad  extending  from  the  city  of 
Marion,  in  Williamson  county,  to  the  village  of  Thebes,  and  that  said  rail- 
road is  now  being  operated  by  the  Chicago  &  Eastern  Illinois  Railroad  Com- 
pany under  a  lease;  that  the  petitioner  desires  to  cross  at  grade  the  main 
line  of  the  Eastern  Illinois  and  Missouri  Railroad  Company  near  the  town 
of  Santa  Fe,  at  a  point  particularly  described  in  the  petition,  and  that  such 
crossing  will  not  unnecessarily  impede  or  endanger  the  travel  or  transpor- 
tation upon  the  railroad  so  crossed  and  will  not  unnecessarily  endanger  life 
or  property. 

The  respondents  were  duly  notified  of  the  filing  of  this  petition  and  in 
accordance  with  the  requirements  of  the  statute,  the  commission  viewed  the 
place  of  the  proposed  crossing  on  Feb.  13,  1907.  On  March  1,  1907,  the  Illi- 
nois Central  Railroad  Company  filed  a  petition  asking  to  be  allowed  to 
intervene  in  said  cause  and  to  be  made  a  party  defendant,  on  the  ground 
that  said  railroad,  by  virtue  of  the  provisions  of  a  certain  contract  entered 
into  with  the  Chicago  and  Eastern  Illinois  Railroad  Company  on  March  27, 
1902,  obtained  certain  trackage  rights  for  a  period  of  999  years  over  the 
Eastern  Illinois  and  Missouri  Railroad  between  Olive  Branch  and  Thebes,  and 
consequently  over  said  line  at  the  point  of  the  proposed  crossing.  The 
prayer  of  the  petition  was  granted  and  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company 
made  a  party  defendant. 

Answers  were  duly  filed  by  the  Chicago  and  Eastern  Illinois  Railroad 
Company  and  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company  wherein  it  is  insisted 
that  due  regard  for  the  safety  of  life  and  property  requires  that  the  grades 
be  separated  at  the  point  of  crossing;  that  it  is  entirely  practicable  and  that 


I2S 

«, 

the  petitioner  should  be  required  by  the  order  of  this  commission  to  cross 
the  respondent's  road  by  means  of  an  overhead  crossing. 

The  case  was  set  down  for  hearing  on  March  5,  1907,  at  the  office  of  the 
commission  in  Springfield,  at  which  time  all  interested  parties  being  repre- 
sented, a  large  number  of  witnesses  were  examined,  both  by  the  petitioner 
and  the  respondents.  Upon  the  conclusion  of  the  evidence  and  by  agree- 
ment of  the  parties  the  oral  arguments  were  postponed  until  March  13,  1907, 
and  by  consent  of  all  the  parties  interested,  Mr.  Walter  Warder,  representing 
the  Cairo  Commercial  Club,  was  permitted  to  argue  the  case  orally. 

On  March  11,  1907,  a  communication  from  Mr.  H.  I.  Miller,  president  of 
the  Chicago  and  Eastern  Illinois  Railroad  Company,  addressed  to  the  com- 
mission, was  filed  with  the  secretary.  In  this  communication  Mr.  Miller, 
representing  the  Chicago  and  Eastern  Illinois  Railroad*  Company  and  the 
Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company,  proposed  to  lower  the  grade  of  their 
railroad  track  at  the  proposed  point  of  crossing  three  feet,  without  expense 
to  the  petitioner  and  to  waive  condemnation  proceedings,  provided  the  peti- 
tioner constructed  or  was  required  to  construct  an  overhead  crossing. 

It  is,  as  we  understand,  conceded  by  all  of  the  parties  interested,  that  the 
construction  of  an  overhead  crossing  at  the  point  of  intersection  is  prac- 
ticable; that  is,  that  such  crossing  can  be  constructed,  but  it  is  contended 
by  the  petitioner,  among  other  things,  that  the  cost  of  separating  the  grades 
at  this  point  would  seriously  cripple  it  in  the  building  of  the  proposed  line, 
if,  indeed,  it  did  not  cause  an  abandonment  of  the  enterprise. 

The  proposed  point  of  crossing  is  a  short  distance  southeast  of  the  town 
of  Santa  Fe,  in  Alexander  county.  At  this  point  respondent's  road,  generally 
speaking,  runs  in  a  northerly  and  southerly  direction  and  the  proposed  road 
of  the  petitioner  will  be  constructed  in  an  easterly  and  westerly  direction. 
The  road  of  the  petitioner,  south  of  the  proposed  point  of  crossing,  will  be 
constructed  for  a  considerable  distance  over  low,  swampy  land,  much  lower 
than  the  land  at  the  point  of  crossing,  and  in  approaching  the  crossing  from 
the  south,  the  track  of  the  petitioner  will  be  laid  on  a  grade  of  three-tenths 
of  one  per  cent  for  a  considerable  distance,  in  order  to  reach  the  present 
grade  of  the  respondent's  road  at  the  crossing. 

On  the  part  of  the  petitioner  a  number  of  civil  engineers  testified  that  the 
cost  of  a  grade  crossing,  at  the  point  in  question,  would  be  $65,916.50  and 
the  cost  of  an  overhead  crossing  would  be  $5fi3  234.73,  the  difference  between 
these  two  sums,  $497,000.00  approximately,  being  the  cost  of  an  overhead 
crossing  over  and  above  the  cost  of  a  grade  crossing.  These  figures  were 
based  on  the  assumption  that  the  grade  of  petitioner's  road  approaching  the 
summit  of  the  overhead  crossing  should  not  exceed  three-tenths  of  one  per 
cent,  that  beinr?  the  maximum  grade  adopted  by  the  company  in  laying  out 
its  line.  On  the  part  of  the  respondents  several  engineers  testified  that  a 
grade  crossing  would  cost  $126,147.00  and  the  cost  of  an  overhead  crossing 
would  be  $939.581.00,  the  difference  being  $113.434.00.  They  al?o  testify  that 
a  four  or  five-tenths  grade  would  be  entirely  practicable  and  feasible  and 
would  cost  considerably  less  than  the  amount  above  mentioned.  This  wide 
difference  of  opinion  may  be  exolained  in  part  by  the  following  facts  appear- 
ing from  the  evidence:  Accoridng  to  the  grade  adopted  by  the  netitioner, 
its  line  at  a  point  4.000  feet  south  of  the  proposed  crossing  would  be  from 
twelve  to  thirteen  feet  below  the  grade  at  the  crossing,  consequently  if  it 
should  be  required  to  go  over  the  respondent's  line  and  elevate  its  tracks 
at  the  crossing  so  as  to -give  the  necessary  clearance  for  trains  on  the 
respondent's  road,  the  embankment,  because  of  its  height,  would  have  to  be 
extended  for  a  considerable  distance  to  the  south  and  would  be  about  three 
and  one-third  miles  in  length,  all  told.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  contended 
by  the  respondents  that  the  land  south  of  the  crossing  was  suhieot  to  over- 
flow from  the  Mississippi  river  and  that  if  the  road  of  the  petitioner  at  a 
point  4.000  feet  south  of  the  crossing  was  laid  on  a  grade  twelve  or  thirteen 
feet  below  the  grade  at  the  proposed  point  of  crossing,  it  would,  in  times  of 
floods,  be  several  feet  under  water;  consequently  the  respondents  based  their 
estimate  upon  a  grade  which  their  evidence  tended  to  show  would  be  about 
two  feet  above  high  water  mark,  it  being  contended  that  whether  the  cross- 


126 

ing  was  grade  or  overhead,  the  road  of  petitioner  south  of  the  crossing  would 
necessarily  have  to  be  constructed  on  a  grade  which  would  be  out  of  reach 
of  the  water  during  the  season  when  the  surrounding  ter-itory  was  flooded. 

After  the  conclusion  of  the  evidence  and  at  the  suggestion  and  request  of 
counsel  for  the  respective  parties,  the  commission  directed  its  consulting 
engineer  to  personally  inspect  the  place  of  the  proposed  crossing  and  the 
surrounding  territory  and  prepare  and  present  to  the  commission  an  estimate 
of  the  cost  of  separating  the  grades  at  this  point,  which  was  accordingly 
done.  From  this  estimate  thus  prepared,  it  appears  that  the  cost  of  a  grade 
crossing  would  be  $48,422.21  and  the  cost  of  an  overhead  crossing  $386,650.28, 
the  excess  for  an  overhead  crossing  over  the  cost  of  a  grade  crossing  being 
$338,228.07.  It  also  appears  that  should  the  respondents  depress  their  track 
three  feet,  in  accordance  with  the  proposition  of  Mr  Miller,  above  referred 
to  the  cost  would  be  $295,162.36  for  an  overhead  crossing  over  the  cost  of 
a  grade  crossing. 

In  view  of  the  serious  conflict  in  the  evidence,  only  partially  explained 
by  the  different  bases  of  the  estimates,  we  are  disposed  to  accept  the  figures 
presented  by  the  consulting  engineer  of  the  board  as  correct. 

Under  the  law  as  it  now  stands,  this  commission  is  not  authorized  to 
apportion  the  cost  of  separating  grades  at  railroad  crossings,  but  the  entire 
cost  must  be  borne  by  the  road  seeking  to  cross. 

The  question  then  is,  shall  the  peitioner  be  required  to  construct  an  over- 
head crossing  at  this  point,  at  an  expense  of  nearly  $300,000.00,  or  may  a 
grade  crossing,  properly  protected  by  the  most  improved  interlocking  device, 
be  permitted?  And  if  so,  would  such  action  be  consistent  with  the  proper 
protection  of  life  and  property  and  the  rights  of  the  senior  road? 

The  statute  conferring  jurisdiction  upon  this  commission  "to  prescribe 
the  place  where  and  manner  in  which  crossings  shall  be  made"  was  passed 
in  the  year  1889.  As  has  been  suggested  in  former  opinions  of  the  commis- 
sion, a  reading  of  the  statute  plainly  demonstrates  that  it  was  not  the 
intention  of  the  Legislature  to  prohibit  the  construction  of  grade  crossings 
in  all  cases.  It  was  undoubtedly  considered  that  cases  would  arise  where  it 
would  be  entirely  proper  to  permit  the  construction  of  such  crossings,  pro- 
tected, either  by  interlocking  devices  or  only  by  a  compliance  with  the 
provisions  of  the  statute  requiring  all  trains,  when  approaching  a  crossing 
with  another  railroad  upon  the  same  level,  to  come  to  a  full  stop  before 
reaching  such  crossing.  If  there  has  been  any  change  in  the  public  policy 
of  the  State  in  this  regard  since  the  passage  of  the  Act  of  1889,  it  has  not 
been  evidenced  by  any  action  on  the  part  of  the  Legislature. 

An  examination  of  the  decisions  of  this  commission,  rendered  after  the 
passage  of  this  Act,  will  show  that  in  certain  cases  it  has  been  deemed  proper 
to  permit  grade  crossings  to  be  constructed,  in  some  cases  with  and  in  some 
cases  without,  interlocking  devices  to  protect  the  same,  while  in  others  a 
separation  of  grades  has  been  required,  each  case  being  decided  on  its  own 
merits  without  attempting  to  lay  down  a  rule  applicable  to  all  cases.  We 
think  it  must  be  admitted,  however,  that  in  later  years  the  general  rule 
adopted  by  our  immediate  predecessors  has  been  to  separate  all  grades,  where 
the  circumstances  of  the  case  would  permit,  and  where  by  reason  of  the 
frequency  of  the  passage  of  trains  over  the  proposed  crossing,  or  for  other 
reasons,  life  and  property  could  not  be  otherwise  adequately  protected.  And 
with  this  general  rule  we  are  in  entire  accord,  believing,  as  we  do,  that  the 
mere  question  of  expense  should  not  be  considred  as  of  controlling  import- 
ance where  the  number  of  trains  to  be  operated  over  the  proposed  crossing, 
or  other  conditions  surrounding  the  case,  would  prevent  the  proper  protec- 
tion of  life  and  property. 

The  location  of  petitioner's  road-,  its  length,  the  population  of  the  cities 
along  its  line  and  its  connection  with  o'ther  railroads,  leads  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  its  traffic  will  not  be  very  heavy  or  its  trains  numerous,  at  least 
for  many  years  to  come.  The  evidence  discloses  that  a  comparatively  small 
number  of  trains  are  now  operated  by  the  respondents  over  their  line  at  the 
proposed  point  of  crossing.  It  also  discloses  that  if  a  grade  crossing  is 
permitted,  a  train  on  such  crossing  can  be  seen  for  a  distance  of  at  least 


127 

2,000  feet  from  either  direction  on  the  respondent's  road  and  for  a  greater 
distance  on  the  petitioner's  line. 

In  view  of  these  facts  and  the  large  expense  of  an  overhead  crossing  to 
the  petitioner,  we  are  of  opinion  that  with  the  installation  of  the  most 
improved  interlocking  device,  a  grade  crossing  should  be  permitted,  as  asked 
for  in  the  petition.  And  we  are  further  of  opinion  that  such  manner  of 
crossing  at  the  place  mentioned  will  not  unnecessarily  impede  or  endanger 
the  travel  or  transportation  upon  the  respondent's  railroads. 

It  is  therefore  ordered  and  decided  that  petitioner,  the  Cairo  &  Thebes 
Railroad  Company,  have  leave  to  cross  with  its  tracks  at  grade  the  track  of 
the  respondent,  the  Eastern  Illinois  &  Missouri  Railroad  Co.  now  operated 
by  the  respondents,  the  Chicago  &  Eastern  Illinois  Railroad  Company  and 
the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company,  at  the  place  and  in  the  manner 
specified  in  the  petition  on  file  in  this  cause,  the  right  of  way  for  such 
crossing  being  first  obtained  as  provided  by  law. 

It  is  further  ordered  and  decided  that  such  crossing  be  protected  by  a 
proper  and  adequate  interlocking  device,  to  be  installed,  maintained  and 
operated  by  and  at  the  expense  of  the  Cairo  &  Thebes  Railroad  Company; 
that  said  Cairo  &  Thebes  Railroad  Company  cause  to  be  prepared  and  pre- 
sented to  this  commission  without  unnecessary  delay,  complete  and  detailed 
plans  and  specifications  of  the  interlocking  plans  proposed  to  be  installed 
at  said  crossing,  for  the  approval  of  this  commission  and  that  in  the  opera- 
tion of  such  device  and  the  use  of  such  crossing,  trains  on  the  respondents' 
road  shall  be  given  preference  over  trains  of  the  same  class  on  the  peti- 
tioner's road.  This  cause  will  be  taken  under  advisement  and  a  final  order 
entered  upon  the  presentation  of  plans  and  specifications  for  such  interlocking 
plant  and  the  approval  of  the  same. 

^Signed. 1     W.  H.  BOYS,  Chairman, 

B.   A.   ECKHART,    Commissioner. 
J.    A.    WILT.OUGHBY,    Commissioner. 

April  22,  1907. 


Springfield  Belt  Railway  Co., 

vs. 
Chicago  and  Alton  Railroad  Co. 

Petition  to  Cross  at  Grade  at  lies  Junction. 

Petition  filed  Jan.  29,  1907. 

March  4,  1907.     Place  of  proposed  crossing  viewed  by  commission. 

April  3,  1907.     Case  heard  before  the  commission. 

May  29,  1907.     Order  of  the  commission  entered  of  record  as  follows: 

The  Springfield  Belt  Railway  Co., 

vs. 
Chicago  and  Alton  Railroad   Co. 

Petition  for  Grade  Crossing  at  lies  Junction. 

SHUTT,  GRAHAM  &   GRAHAM,   for   Petitioner. 
MR.  JAMKS  MILES,  for  Respondent. 

The  petition  in  this  case  was  filed  Jan.  27,  1907,  and  it  is  alleged  among 
other  things  that  the  petitioner  ia  a  corporation  organized  under  the  laws 
of  this  State;  that  it  is  engaged  in  constructing  a  belt  line  of  railroad 
around  the  city  of  Springfield,  and  has  located  and  surveyed  its  route  and 
obtained  a  portion  of  the  necessary  right  of  way,  that  said  route  crosses 
the  right  of  way  and  tracks  of  the  respondent  at  lies,  Illinois,  and  at  a  point 
about  200  feet  south  of  the  present  crossing  of  the  Wabash  Railroad  Com- 
pany over  the  respondent's  tracks,  that  it  desires  to  cross  respondent's 


128 

tracks  at  grade  and  is  willing  to  be  at  the  entire  expense  of  putting  in  said 
crossing  and  maintaining  and  operating  the  same;  that  there  is  an  inter- 
locking plant  at  the  point  where  the  Wabash  Railroad  Company  crosses 
respondent's  tracks  at  grade  and  it  is  willing  that  its  tracks  be  connected 
with  such  interlocker  at  its  expense  and  offers  to  pay  any  additional  ex- 
pense that  may  be  necessary  in  the  operation  of  such  interlocker. 

The  place  of  the  proposed  crossing  was  viewed  by  the  commission  on 
March  4,  1907,  and  the  case  set  for  hearing  on  March  5,  1907,  at  the  office 
of  the  commission  in  Springfield,  Illinois,  at  which  time  and  place  the  evi- 
dence offered  by  the  parties  was  heard  and  the  cause  taken  under  advise- 
ment. Subsequently,  on  the  application  of  respondent,  leave  was  granted  the 
parties  to  introduce  further  testimony  and  reargue  the  case  on  May  7,  1907. 

At  the  proposed  point  of  crossing  the  respondent  has  two  tracks  running 
almost  due  north  and  south.  The  proposed  line  of  the  petitioner  will  cross 
these  tracks  at  right  angles.  The  surface  of  the  ground  in  the  immediate 
vicinity  of  the  proposed  crossing  is  nearly  level.  It  is  claimed  by  the  peti- 
tioner that  the  expense  of  constructing  an  overhead  crossing  at  this  point 
will  be  very  large  and  that  inasmuch  as  the  Wabash  Railroad  Company 
crosses  respondent's  tracks  at  grade  200  feet  north  of  its  proposed  crossing 
that  therefore,  no  good  reason  exists  why  it  should  not  be  permitted  to 
connect  with  the  interlocker  at  the  Wabash  crossing  and  also  cross  at  grade. 

The  evidence  as  to  the  cost  of  an  overhead  crossing  (it  being  conceded 
by  both  parties  that  a  subway  is  not  feasible)  as  is  usual  in  such  cases,  is 
not  very  satisfactory.  That  on  the  part  of  the  respondent,  being  to  the 
effect  that  the  overhead  crossing  can  be  put  in  for  about  $20,000.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  evidence  offered  by  the  petitioner  tends  to  show  that  to 
cross  these  tracks  by  an  overhead  crossing  would  cost  about  $150,000. 

We  are  inclined  to  the  opinion  that  a  proper  and  suitable  crossing  with 
a  working  gradient  would  cost  more  than  the  estimate  of  the  respondent 
and  very  much  less  than  the  estimate  of  the  petitioner.  In  the  view  we 
take  of  the  matter,  however,  it  is  not  necessary  to  determine  what  the  exact 
cost  would  be;  suffice  it  to  say  that  it  will  not  be  so  large  as  to  have  any 
very  great  bearing  on  the  question  to  be  decided. 

The  uncontradicted  evidence  in  the  case  shows  that  there  are,  at  the 
present  time,  52  train  movements  per  day  over  respondent's  road  at  the  point 
of  the  proposed  crossing.  Respondent's  Murrayville  line  branches  from 
the  main  line  a  few  hundred  feet  south  of  the  proposed  crossing  and  when 
it  is  opened  about  July  15th,  there  will  be  added  ten  regular  trains,  making 
a  total  of  at  least  62  train  movements  every  twenty-four  hours. 

The  petitioner's  line  is  being  constructed  around  the  city  of  Springfield 
to  connect  its  line  running  south  of  Springfield  with  its  line  or  lines  run- 
ning north  and  this  is  made  necessary  by  the  fact  that  it  cannot  haul  freight 
through  the  city,  its  tracks  being  laid  in  the  public  streets.  The  evidence 
does  not  show  how  many  cars  or  trains  on  petitioner's  road  would  pass  over 
this  proposed  crossing  in  twenty-four  hours,  but  if  its  projectors'  expecta- 
tions are  realized  the  number  will  not  be  inconsiderable. 

Under  these  facts,  should  this  commission  consent  to  a  grade  crossing 
at  the  point  in  question?  The  proposition  of  petitioner  to  join  with  the 
respondent  and  the  Wabash  Railroad  Company  in  the  separation  of  the 
grades  of  the  three  roads  at  this  point,  is  not  without  merit;  however,  the 
Wabash  Railroad  Company  is  not  a  party  to  this  proceeding  and  therefore 
this  commission  has  no  power  to  make  or  enforce  an  order  compelling  it  to 
join  in  such  an  arrangement.  Such  being  the  case,  would  the  mere  fact 
that  the  Wabash  Railroad  Company  crosses  the  respondent's  tracks  at 
grade  within. two  hundred  feet  of  the  proposed  crossing  justify  the.  com- 
mission in  allowing  the  petitioner  to  cross  at  grade?  If  so,  then  another 
crossing  might  be  permitted  in  the  same  vicinity  and  still  another,  and 
so  on  ad  infinitum. 

The  statute  governing  this  proceeding  is  in  part  as  follows: 

"That  hereafter  any  railroad  company  desiring  to  cross  with  its  tracks 
the  main  line  of  another  railroad  company,  shall  construct  the  crossing 
at  such  place  and  in  such  manner  as  will  not  unnecessarily  impede  or  en- 
danger the  travel  or  transportation  upon  the  railroad  so  crossed." 


129 

After  full  investigation,  and  with  due  regard  to  the  safety  of  life  and  prop- 
erty said  board  shall  give  a  decision  prescribing  the  place  where  and  the 
manner  in  which  said  crossing  shall  be  made.  *  *  *" 

We  do  not  feel  that  we  would  be  giving  due  regard  to  the  safety  of  life 
and  property  should  we  permit  a  grade  crossing  at  this  point,  nor  are  we 
prepared  to  say  that  such  crossing  would  not  unnecessarily  impede  or  en-: 
danger  the  travel  or  transportation  on  the  respondent's  road. 

Grade  crossings  where  trains  are  numerous,  no  matter  how  thoroughly 
they  maye  be  protected  by  interlocking  devices  are  dangerous.  Notwith- 
standing the  great  skill  and  ingenuity  displayed  by  the  manufacturers  of 
these  devices  in  perfecting  them  and  the  strict  orders  of  the  railroad  com- 
panies to  their  employes  regarding  their  use,  accidents  do  not  occur. and  this 
largely  because  of  the  fact,  that  what  may  be  called  the  "hum&n  agency" 
is  ever  present,  and  no  device  has  yet  been  invented  by  which  it  may  be  en- 
tirely eliminated.  Cases  have  been  presented  in  the  past  and  may  arise 
in  the  future,  where  the  commission  would  feel  justified,  all  the  facts  and 
circumstances  considered,  in  permitting  grade  crossing  to  be  constructed, 
but  as  far  as  we  are  able  to  discover,  not  one  of  the  elements  which  would 
justify  such  action,  can  be  found  in  this  case. 

It  is  therefore  ordered  and  decided  that  the  Springfield  Belt  Railway 
Company  have  leave  to  cross  the  tracks  of  the  Chicago  and  Alton  Railroad 
Company  at  lies  Junction,  at  the  point  mentioned  in  the  petition  filed  herein, 
by  means  of  an  overhead  crossing;  that  said  overhead  crossing  shall  leave 
twenty-two  (22)  feet  in  the  clear  between  the  top  of  the  rails  of  the  Chicago 
and  Alton  Railroad  and  the  lower  part  of  the  superstructure  of  said  over- 
head crossing;  that  the  petitioner  pay  the  entire  cost  of  the  construction 
and  future  maintenance  of  said  overhead  crossing,  and  also  the  costs  and 
expenses  of  the  commission  incurred  in  this  cause. 

Dated  this  29th  day  of  May,  1907. 

(Signed)    W.  H.  BOYS,  Chairman. 

B.  A.  ECKHART,   Commissioner. 
J.   A.   WILLOUGHBY,    Commissioner. 


Decatur,  Sullivan  and  Mattoon  Traction  Co., 

vs. 
Vandalia  Railroad   Co. 

Petition  to  Cross  Vandalia  R.  R.  at  Grade  near  Hervey  City,  III. 

Petition  filed  May  7,  1907. 

May  29,  1907.     Place  of  proposed  crossing  viewed  by  the  commission. 

June  4,  1907.     Case  heard  before  the  commission. 

July  19,  1907.     Order  of  the  commission  entered  of  record  as  follows: 

BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 

Decatur,  Sullivan  &  Mattoon  Transit  Company, 

vs. 
Vandalia  Railroad  Company. 

Petition  to  Cross  at  Grade. 

APPEARANCES: 

For  Complainant,  MR.  CLOKEY. 
For  Respondent,  MR.  W.  C.  OUTEN. 

The  petitioner  in  this  case  is  organized  under  the  general  railroad  laws 
of  this  State,  and,  the  road  when  built,  is  to  be  operated  by  electricity.  The 
line  will  extend  from  Decatur  to  Mattoon,  a  distance  of  about  fifty  miles. 

-90 


130 

It  is  proposed  by  the  petitioner  to  cross  the  main  track  of  the  respondent 
at  Hervey  City  and  the  only  question  in  the  case  is,  whether  or  not  such 
crossing  shall  be  at  grade. 

It  appears  from  the  evidence  submitted  that  the  respondent  and  the  Illi- 
nois Central  Railroad  Company  jointly  own  and  operate  a  railroad  track 
between  Decatur  and  Hervey  City.  From  this  latter  point  the  respondent 
operates  a  line  extending  in  an  easterly  direction  through  Arcola  while  the 
line  of  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company  runs  in  a  southeasterly  direc- 
tion through  Mattoon. 

The  point  of  crossing  selected  by  the  petitioner  is  at  or  near  the  junction 
of  the  lines  of  the  respondent  and  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company. 

When  the  road  of  the  petitioner  is  put  in  operation  it  is  proposed  to  run 
about  thirty  cars  or  trains  over  this  crossing  every  twenty-four  hours.  Dur- 
ing the  past  year  the  average  number  of  trains  passing  over  this  part  of  the 
respondent's  road  each  day  is  shown  to  have  been  from  ten  to  twelve  and  the 
prospects  for  the  immediate  future  are  that  this  number  will  be  increased 
rather  than  diminished. 

It  is  not  claimed  by  the  petitioner  that  an  overhead  crossing  can  not  be 
constructed  at  this  point.  Indeed,  the  evidence  in  the  case  and  our  views  of 
the  premises  convince  us,  that  the  conditions  are  most  favorable  for  the  con- 
struction of  such  a  crossing.  There  is  a  slight  rise  in  the  ground  both  to 
the  north  and  the  south  of  respondent's  line,  which  would  materially  lessen 
the  cost  of  such  a  structure,  and  it  was  agreed  upon  at  the  hearing,  that  the 
cost  of  an  overhead  crossing  would  probably  not  exceed  the  sum  of  $20,000. 
This,  when  compared  with  the  cost  of  installing,  maintaining  and  operating 
an  interlocking  plant  at  this  point,  seems  to  us  to  be  not  only  the  better, 
but  the  cheaper  plan,  but  whether  this  is  true  or  not  can  not  make  any  dif- 
ference. All  agree  that  grade  crossings  are  a  source  of  danger  to  life  and 
property  and  where  a  considerable  number  of  trains  are  to  be  moved  over 
the  crossing  daily,  and  the  cost  of  separating  the  grades  is  not  excessive, 
such  crossings  should' not  be  permitted. 

A  "Y"  track  connects  the  respondent's  track  with  the  tracks  of  the  Illinois 
Central  Railroad  Company,  and  the  petitioner  proposes  to  cross  this  "Y" 
track  at  a  point  about  1,200  to  1,500  feet  southwest  of  the  proposed  crossing 
over  the  main  line.  This  track  is  rarely  used,  it  being  shown  that  the  ex- 
change of  cars  would  average  not  more  than  five  (5)  per  month,  nor  is  it 
claimed  by  anyone  that  any  necessity  exists  for  separating  the  grades  at 
this  point. 

We  are  therefore  of  opinion  that  due  regard  for  the  safety  of  life  and 
property  requires  that  an  overhead  crossing  be  constructed  by  the  petitioner 
over  the  main  track  of  the  respondent,  but  that  no  necessity  exists  for  such 
a  crossing  over  the  "Y"  track. 

It  is  therefore  ordered  and  decided  that  the  Decatur,  Sullivan  and  Mattoon 
Transit  Company  have  leave  to  cross  the  main  tracks  of  the  Vandalia  Rail- 
road Company  at  Hervey  City  at  the  point  mentioned  and  described  in  the 
petition  filed  herein,  by  means  of  an  overhead  crossing;  that  said  crossing 
shall  be  so  constructed  as  to  leave  twenty-two  (22)  feet  in  the  clear  between 
the  top  of  the  rails  of  the  Vandalia  Railroad  Company  and  the  lowest  part 
of  the  superstructure  of  said  overhead  crossing;  that  said  petitioner  also 
have  leave  to  cross  the  "Y"  track  connecting  the  Vandalia  Railroad  Com- 
pany with  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company  at  the  point  mentioned  in 
said  petition,  at  grade,  and  that  leave  be  granted  the  respondent  to  apply  to 
the  commission  at  any  time  hereafter  for  an  order  requiring  the  protection 
of  said  grade  crossing  by  derail  or  otherwise  in  case  it  deems  such  action 
necessary  for  the  protection  of  life  or  property. 

It  is  further  ordered  that  the  petitioner  pay  the  entire  cost  of  the  con- 
struction and  future  maintenance  of  said  overhead  crossing  and  grade  cross- 
ing, and  also  the  costs  and  expenses  of  the  commission  incurred  in  this 
cause. 

Dated  this  19th  day  of  July  A.  D.  1907. 

(Signed)    W.  H.  BOYS,  Chairman. 

B.  A.  ECKHART,   Commissioner. 
J.    A.    WILLOUGHBY,    Commissioner. 


131 

Atchison,  Topeka  and  Santa  F6  Ry.  Co. 

vs. 
Elgin,  Joliet  and  Eastern  Ry.  Co. 

The  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  having  been  requested  to  arbi- 
trate as  between  the  above  companies,  as  to  the  construction  of  the  terms 
of  a  contract  for  a  crossing  at  Coal  City,  111.,  and  the  commission  having 
consented  to  so  act,  held  a  meeting  in  Chicago  on  the  9th  day  of  May, 
1907,  to  hear  the  case. 

APPEARANCES : 

For  the  A.  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co.,  Mr.  C.  A.  Morse,  Chief  Engineer. 
For  the  A.  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co.,  Mr.  Thos.  S.  Stevens,  Signal  Engineer. 
For  the  E.  J.  &  E.  Ry.  Co.,  Mr.  R.  W.  Campbell,  Attorney. 
For  the  E.  J.  &  E.  Ry.  Co.,  Mr.  R.  D.  Campbell,  General  Manager. 

The  commission  having  given  both  parties  to  this  controversy  an  oppor- 
tunity to  fully  explain,  decided  as  follows: 

Atchison,  Topeka  and  Santa  F6  Railway  Company 

vs. 
Elgin,  Joliet  and  Eastern  Railway  Company. 

Opinion  on  Certain  Questions  Submitted  to  the  Commission  for  Decision. 

The  Chicago,  Santa  Fe  and  California  Railway  Company  being  the  owner 
of  a  line  of  railroad  extending  through  Coal  City,  Illinois  on  the  3rd  day  of 
October,  1888,  entered  into  a  contract  with  the  Gardner,  Coal  City  and 
Northern  Railway  Company  granting  to  the  latter  named  road  "the  right 
to  lay  down,  maintain  and  operate  its  two  main  tracks  of  standard  guage 
over  and  across  the  track  of  the  Chicago,  Santa  F6  and  California  Ry.  Co. 
near  the  western  limits  of  Coal  City,  Illinois"  upon  certain  terms  and  con- 
ditions in  such  contract  expressed.  The  contract,  by  its  express  terms,  ex- 
tends to  and  is  binding  upon  the  respective  successors  and  assigns  of  the 
parties.  The  Atchison,  Topeka  and  Santa  Fe  Railway  Company  succeeded 
the  Chicago,  Santa  Fe  and  California  Railroad  Company  and  the  Elgin, 
Joliet  and  Eastern  Railway  Company  succeeded  the  Gardner,  Coal  City  and 
Northern  Railway  Company. 

It  is  provided  in  the  contract  among  other  things  that  if  at  any  time  a 
difference  of  opinion  between  the  parties  shall  arise  as  to  the  rights  and 
duties  of  either,  the  question  in  dispute  shall  be  referred  to  a  board  of  arbi- 
trators to  be  selected  in  the  manner  therein  provided.  Such  difference  of 
opinion  having  arisen,  this  commission,  at  the  request  of  both  of  the  parties, 
consented  to  act  as  arbitrators,  and  the  contentions  of  the  respective  parties 
were  submitted  to  the  commission  at  its  regular  meeting  in  Chicago  on  the 
9th  instant. 

It  appears  that  at  the  present  time,  the  Santa  Fe  Company  has  two  main 
tracks  at  the  point  of  crossing,  and  the  Elgin,  Joliet  and  Eastern  Railway 
Company  has  but  a  single  track,  although  by  the  terms  of  the  contract  it 
was  entitled  to  construct  two  tracks. 

The  contract  in  question  contains  the  following  provisions: 

First — That  the  first  party  (Santa  F6  Company)  shall  not  be  disturbed 
in  the  use  of  the  tracks  now  owned  and  operated  by  it  at  the  point  of 
crossing  aforesaid,  and  said  party  of  the  second  part  (Elgin,  Joliet  and 
Eastern  Company)  agrees  that  nothing  shall  be  done  or  suffered  to  be  done 
by  it,  that  shall  in  any  manner  materially  impair  the  usefulness  of  said 
existing  track  of  the  party  of  the  first  part  or  of  such  track  or  tracks  as 
may  hereafter  be  constructed  by  the  said  party  of  the  first  part  as  herein- 
after provided. 

"Second — It  is  understood  and  agreed  between  the  parties  hereto  that 
the  said  party  of  the  first  part  shall  have  the  right  to  lay  down,  maintain 
and  operate  one  or  more  tracks  in  addition  to  its  present  main  track,  at 
the  point  of  said  crossing. 


132 

t 

"Third — The  said  party  of  the  second  part  agrees  that  it  will  furnish 
the  material  for,  and  construct,  put  in  and  maintain  all  crossing  frogs,  and 
will  furnish  and  put  in  at  their,  own  cost  and  expense,  all  crossing  signals, 
gates,  targets  and  other  fixtures  and  interlocking  devices  necessary  to 
enable  the  said  first  party  to  run  its  trains  over  said  crossing  without  stop- 
ping. The  interlocking  system  used,  to  be  that  of  the  Union  Switch  and 
Signal  Company,  or  of  such  other  system  as  may  be  approved  by  the  party 
of  the  first  part,  and  the  party  of  the  second  part  will  make  necessary  ap- 
plication to  obtain  the  approval  of  the  same  by  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse 
Commissioners  of  the  State  of  Illinois  and  diligently  prosecute  the  same. 
*  *  *" 

"Fourth — It  is  further  agreed  that  the  cost  and  expense  of  maintaining 
and  operating  the  said  interlocking  system  shall  be  borne  jointly  by  the 
parties  hereto;  the  party  of  the  first  part  paying  one-third,  and  the  party  of 
the  second  part  two-thirds  of  such  cost  *  *  *  *." 

The  difference  of  opinion  between  the  parties  arises  out  of  the  following 
facts:  The  Santa  Fe  Company  is  desirous  of  constructing  two  passing 
tracks  at  Coal  City,  one  on  the  north  side  of  its  main  tracks  and  one  on 
the  south  side.  It  is,  we  think  conceded  by  both  parties  that  it  is  impracti- 
cable to  extend  these  passing  tracks  across  the  Elgin,  Joliet  and  Eastern 
main  track.  Because  of  that  fact  the  Santa  Fe  Company  proposes  to  shorten 
its  passing  track  on  the  north  side  of  its  main  track  several  hundred  feet 
and  connect  the  east  end  of  such  track  with  its  main  track  a  very  short  dis- 
tance west  of  the  crossing  and  within  the  limits  of  the  interlocking  device 
there  maintained.  It  is  then  proposed  to  put  in  a  crossing  between  the 
main  tracks  and  build  its  south  passing  track  east  of  the  Elgin,  Joliet 
and  Eastern  crossing,  the  west  end  of  such  track  and  the  switches  connect- 
ing it  with  the  main  track,  all  being  within  the  limits  of  the  interlocker. 

On  these  facts,  it  is  contended  by  the  Santa  Fe  Company,  that  under  the 
contract  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Elgin,  Joliet  and  Eastern  Company  to  connect 
the  switches  and  derails  at  the  end  of  its  north  passing  track,  and  at  the 
west  end  of  its  south  passing  track,  and  the  necessary  switches  to  operate 
the  crossover,  with  the  interlocking  plant  at  its  own  expense,  and  to  main- 
tain and  operate  the  additional  levers  required,  under  the  terms  of  the  con- 
tract, that  is  to  say,  that  it,  the  Elgin,  Joliet  &  Eastern  Company  shall,  in 
addition  to  connecting  such  switches  and  derail  with  the  interlocker  at  its 
own  expense,  pay  two-thirds  of  the  cost  of  maintaining  and  operating  the  ad- 
ditional levers  required. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  contended  by  the  Elgin,  Joliet  and  Eastern  Com- 
pany that  under  the  terms  of  the  contract,  it  cannot  be  required  to  connect 
any  of  the  switches  or  derails  in  question  with  the  interlocker,  and  this 
for  the  reason  that  none  of  the  proposed  tracks  will  cross  its  main  track. 

It  admits,  at  least,  so  far  as  this  case  is  concerned,  that  if  any  or  all 
of  the  proposed  tracks  crossed  its  main  track  it  would  be  required  to  fur- 
nish and  put  in  the  necessary  frogs,  erect  the  necessary  signals  and  make 
the  necessary  connections  with  the  interlocker. 

It  will  thus  be  seeen  that  the  only  question  submitted  to  this  commission 
for  decision  is  purely  a  legal  one  and  relates  entirely  to  the  question  of  the 
proper  construction  of  the  contract  between  the  parties. 

We  think  there  could  be  no  question  as  to  the  right  of  the  Sant  F6 
Company  to  extend  both  of  the  proposed  passing  tracks  over  the  track  of  the 
Elgin,  Joliet  and  Eastern  Company,  and,  should  it  elect  so  to  do,  it  would 
undoubtedly  be  the  duty  of  the  latter  company  to  furnish,  put  in  and  main- 
tain the  necessary  crossing,  and  make  the  proper  connections  with  the  in- 
terlocker. Such  action  on  the  part  of  the  Santa  F6  Company,  would  not 
only  cause  an  immediate  expenditure  of  a  considerable  sum  of  money,  by 
the  Elgin,  Joliet  and  Eastern  Company,  but  it  would  be  a  continuing  ex- 
pense, and  would  of  course  increase  the  danger  to  the  life  and  property  at  the 
crossing. 

Whether  or  not,  in  consideration  of  the  waiver  by  the  Santa  Fe  Company 
in  the  interests  of  safety,  of  its  right  to  construct  its  tracks  as  above  sug- 
gested, the  Elgin,  Joliet  and  Eastern  Company  should  as  a  matter  of  equity 
accede  to  the  demands  of  the  Santa  Fe  Company,  is  a  question  which  we 


133 

understand,  is  not  submitted  to  us  for  determination.  The  Elgin,  Joliet 
and  Eastern  Company  stands  upon  all  of  its  legal  rights,  and  such  being  the 
case,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  under  the  provisions  of  the  contract  above 
quoted  (they  being  the  only  ones  pertinent  on  the  question  here  considered) 
the  Elgin,  Joliet  and  Eastern  Company  cannot  be  required  to  do  or  perform 
any  of  the  acts  or  things  contended  for  by  the  Santa  Fe  Company.  It  would 
serve  no  useful  purpose  to  further  extend  this  finding  by  giving  in  detail 
the  process  of  reasoning  by  which  we  have  arrived  at  this  conclusion;  suf- 
fice it  to  say,  that  applying  the  ordinary  rules  of  construction  to  the  above 
quoted  provision  of  this  contract,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  legal  duty 
of  the  Elgin,  Joliet  and  Eastern  Company  to  do  and  perform  the  things 
therein  mentioned  on  its  part  to  be  done  and  performed  arise  only,  when 
the  Santa  F6  Company  constructs  or  desires  to  construct  a  track  or  tracks 
across  the  Elgin,  Joliet  and  Eastern  tracks. 
Dated  this  17th  day  of  May,  A.  D.  1907. 

'    (Signed)    W.  H.  BOYS,  Chairman. 

B.  A.  ECKHABT,   Commissioner. 

J.   A.   WILLOUGHBY,    Commissioner. 


Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. 

vs. 

Pittsburgh,  Ft.  Wayne  and  Chicago  Ry.  Co. 
and  its  lessee,  the  Pennsylvania  Co., 
Lake  Shore  and  Michigan  Southern  Ry.  Co. 
New  York,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co. 
and  the  city  of  Chicago. 

Petition  for  an  Investigation  of  Track  Elevation  and  for  a  Separatism  of 

Grades. 

Petition  filed  June  6,  1907. 

June  26,  1907,  motion  to  dismiss  filed  by  P.,  Ft.  W.  &  C.  Ry. 

July  11,  1907,  case  heard  before  commission. 

August  6,  1907,  finding  and  opinion  of  the  commission  filed  for  record  as 
follows: 

BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 

Pittsburg,  Ft.  Wayne  &  Chicago  Railway, 
and  its  lessee  the  Pennsylvania  Company, 
Lake  Shore  and  Michigan  Southern  Railroad  Company, 
New  York,  Chicago  and  St.  Louis  Railroad  Company, 
and  the  City  of  Chicago. 

Petition  to  Require  Separation  of  Grades  at  Grand  Crossing. 

APPEARANCES : 

For  I.  C.  R.  R.  Co. — J.  M.  DICKINSON,  JOHN  G.  DRENNAN. 
For  N.  Y.  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co. — GLENNON,  GARY,  WALKER  &  HOWE. 
For  L.  S.  &  M.  S.  Ry.  Co. — GLENNON,  GARY,  WALKER  &  HOWE. 
For  P.,  Ft.  W.  &  C.  Ry.  Co. — LOESCH,  SCOFIELD  &.  LOESCH. 
For  Penn.  Co. — LOESCH,  SCOFIELD  &  LOESCH. 

The  petition  in  this  case  was  filed  in  the  office  of  the  secretary  of  the  com- 
mission on  June  6,  1907,  and  it  is  alleged  that  the  petitioner,  the  Illinois 
Central  Railway  Company,  is  a  railroad  corporation  organized  under  and 
by  virtue  of  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Illinois;  that  it  owns  and  operates 
about  twenty-one  hundred  miles  of  railroad  within  the  State  and  an  equal 
number  of  miles  of  railroad  in  other  states;  that  its  principal  terminal  for 
its  system  of  railroad  extends  from  Randolph  street  in  the  city  of  Chicago 


to  the  southern  city  limits;  that  its  main  line  and  tracks  cross  the  main  line 
and  tracks  of  the  respondents  at  grade  at  or  near  Grand  Crossing  in  said 
city;  that  about  one  hundred  of  petitioner's  suburban  trains,  and  about 
sixty  through  passenger  trains  cross  the  respondents'  tracks  at  Grand  Cross- 
ing daily,  and  that  in  addition  thereto  an  aggregate  of  about  thiry-five 
hundred  freight  cars  are  daily  moved  by  petitioner  and  its  lessees  over  this 
crossing;  that  petitioner  is  informed  and  believes  and  charges  the  fact  to  be 
that  the  respondent  railroad  companies  operate  a  larger  number  of  passen- 
ger and  freight  trains  over  said  crossing  daily  than  does  petitioner. 

It  is  further  alleged  that  on  the  29th  day  of  September  A.  D.  1902,  the  city 
of  Chicago  passed  an  ordinance,  requiring  the  petitioner  and  respondents  to 
elevate  their  tracks  at  Grand  Crossing,  and  that  all  of  the  parties  to  this 
cause  accepted  said  ordinance  and  that  it  is  binding  upon  each  and  all  of 
them;  that  if  the  tracks  of  petitioner  and  respondents  are  elevated  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  provisions  of  said  ordinance  without  the  grade  of  peti- 
tioner's and  respondent's  tracks  being  separated  "said  portion  of  the  tracks 
of  your  petitioner  and  said  portion  of  the  tracks  of  each  of  the  defendant 
railroad  companies,  at  and  in  the  vicinity  of  said  Grand  Crossing,  will  be 
in  an  unsafe  condition  and  dangerous  to  the  security  of  persons  doing  busi- 
ness therewith  as  passengers  upon  the  respective  railroads  which  are  parties 
hereto;  that  a  grade  crossing  of  all  of  said  railroad  tracks,  when  elevated  in 
accordance  with  the  terms  and  conditions  of  said  ordinance,  will  render  the 
operation  of  their  trains  unsafe  and  places  in  constant  peril  all  passengers 
carried  on  the  passenger  trains  of  said  railroad  passing  along  and  over 
their  respective  tracks  at  and  in  the  vicinity  of  said  Grand  Crossing;  and 
will  be  unsafe  and  dangerous  to  the  security  of  the  employes  of  your  peti- 
tioner and  the  defendant  railroad  companies  operating  their  freight  and 
passenger  trains." 

It  is  also  alleged  that  petitioner  has  endeavored  to  reach  an  agreement 
with  the  respondents,  relative  to  the  separation  of  grades  at  this  point,  but 
has  beeen  unable  to  do  so.  A  plan  for  the  separation  of  grades  is  then  set 
forth  in  detail,  and  the  prayer  is  "that  an  order  may  be  made  by  your 
honorable  body  in  accordance  therewith  for  the  elevation  of  said  railroad 
tracks  at  and  in  the  vicinity  of  said  Grand  Crossing,  as  may  be  deemed  just 
in  the  premises,  to  the  end  that  the  grade  of  your  petitioner's  tracks  and 
the  grade  of  the  defendant  companies'  tracks  shall  be  separated." 

Due  and  proper  notice  of  the  filing  of  the  petition  was  given  to  each  of  the 
respondents,  and  on  the  5th  day  of  July  1907,  the  Lake  Shore  and  Michigan 
Southern  Railway  Company  filed  its  answer  admitting  all  of  the  material 
allegations  of  the  petition  and  joining  in  the  prayer  of  the  petition  as 
above  set  forth.  On  the  9th  day  of  July,  1907,  a  like  answer  was  filed  by  the 
New  York,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis  Railway  Company.  No  appearance  was  en- 
tered nor  answer  filed  by  the  city  of  Chicago. 

On  June  26,  1907,  the  Pittsburg,  Ft.  Wayne  &  Chicago  Railway  Company 
and  the  Pennsylvania  Company  filed  a  motion  to  dismiss  the  petition  for  the 
following  reasons: 

"(1)  That  the  said  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  of  the  State 
of  Illinois  has  not  jurisdiction  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Illinois  of 
the  subject  matter  of  said  petition; 

"(2)  That  the  said  commission  is  not  authorized  by  the  statutes  of  the 
State  of  Illinois  to  consider  and  hear  the  subject  matter  of  said  petition; 

"(3)  That  the  said  commission  is  not  authorized  by  the  laws  of  the  State 
of  Illinois  to  grant  the  prayer  of  said  petition,  or  any  part  thereof." 

The  question  presented  by  this  motion  is  an  important  one,  and,  as  far 
as  we  are  advised,  has  never  been  directly  passed  upon  by  this  commission 
nor  any  of  the  courts  of  this  State.  Briefly  stated,  the  question  is:  has  this 
commission  the  power  to  compel  the  separation  of  the  grades  of  two  or 
more  railroads,  at  crossings  heretofore  constructed  on  the  same  grade,  on  the 
petition  of  one  of  the  railroads  interested? 

This  commission  is  a  creature  of  the  statute,  and  unless  power  or  jurisdic- 
tion to  enter  the  order  asked  for  by  the  petitioner,  is  conferred  upon  us, 
either  expressly  or  by  necessary  implication,  the  motion  to  dismiss  must  be 
sustained. 


135 

Indeed  it  has  been  held  that  railroad  commissions  possess  no  power  ex- 
cept such  as  is  expressly  conferred  by  the  statutes.  See  Railroad  Commis- 
sioners vs.  Oregon  Railway  and  Navigation  Co.,  17  Oregon  65,  where  it  is 
said: 

"The  jurisdiction  of  such  commission  is  not  given  by  implication.  Com- 
missioners of  that  character  are  mere  creatures  of  statute,  and  possess  no 
power  except  what  the  statute  expressly  confers  upon  them  *  *  *  * 
It  is  not,  it  seems  to  me,  requiring  too  much  of  the  legislative  branch  of  the 
government  to  exact,  when  it  creates  a  commission  and  clothes  it  with  im- 
portant functions,  that  it  shall  define  and  specify  the  authority  given  it,  so 
clearly  that  no  doubt  can  reasonably  arise  in  the  mind  of  the  public  as  to 
its  extent." 

The  rule  is  stated  somewhat  differently  in  2  Elliott  on  Railroads,  sections 
675  and  683,  as  follows: 

"(675)  Government  control  of  railroads  in  many  of  the  states  is  exer- 
cised through  the  instrumentality  of  officers  generally  called  railroad  com- 
missioners. These  officers,  of  course,  derive  all  their  power  from  the  statute 
which  creates  the  commission,  and  a  railroad  commission  is  a  tribunal  pos- 
sessing naked  statutory  powers." 

"(683)  In  ascertaining  the  jurisdiction  of  such  a  tribunal  the  statute 
creating  it  must  always,  it  is  obvious,  be  consulted,  since  the  only  jurisdic- 
tion it  possesses  is  such  as  the  statute  confers.  We  suppose  that  the  ordinary 
rules  which  govern  quasi  judical  tribunals  created  by  statute  and  invested 
with  naked  statutory  powers,  govern  boards  of  railroad  commissioners, 
and  that  nothing  can  be  intended  to  be  within  their  jurisdiction  which  is 
not  placed  there  by  statute.  It  is  not  necessary,  as  we  believe,  that  the  statute 
should  expressly  and  explicitly  define  the  jurisdiction  of  the  commissioners, 
but  it  is  sufficient  if  jurisdiction  is  conferred  in  general  terms.  If  juris- 
diction over  a  general  subject  is  conferred  then  authority  over  branches  and 
details  of  that  subject  is  conferred  by  necessary  implication." 

Conceding  the  quotation  from  Elliott  to  be  a  correct  statement  of  the  law, 
the  question  then  is:  does  the  statute  creating  this  commission,  or  do  any 
of  the  Acts  passed  subsequent  thereto,  expressly  or  by  necessary  implication 
confer  power  or  jurisdiction  on  this  commission  to  enter  the  order  asked 
for  by  the  petitioner? 

The  Act  creating  the  commission  was  passed  in  1871.  Its  title  is  "An  Act 
to  establish  a  board  of  railroad  and  warehouse  commissioners,  and  pre- 
scribe their  powers  and  duties."  It  is  not  claimed  by  counsel  for  petitioner 
that  this  Act  expressly  confers  upon  the  commission  the  power  we  are  asked 
to  exercise  or  the  jurisdiction  we  are  asked  to  assume,  but  it  is  contended 
that  section  11%  of  the  Act  confers  that  power  and  jurisdiction  by  impli- 
cation. This  section  was  added  to  the  original  Act  in  1887,  and  is  in  part  as 
follows : 

"*  *  *  Whenever  it  shall  come  to  the  knowledge  of  said  board,  by  com- 
plaint or  otherwise,  that  any  railroad  bridge  or  trestle,  or  any  portion  of  the 
track  of  any  railroad  in  the  State  is  out  of  repair,  or  is  in  an  unsafe  con- 
dition, it  shall  be  the  duty  of  such  board  to  investigate,  or  cause  an  in- 
vestigation to  be  made,  of  the  condition  of  such  railroad  bridge,  trestle  or 
track  and  may  employ  such  person  or  persons  who  may  be  civil  engineers  or 
engineers,  as  they  shall  deem  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  making  such 
investigation,  and  whenever  in  the  judgment  of  said  board,  after  such  in- 
vestigation, it  shall  become  necessary  to  rebuild  such  bridge,  track  or 
trestle,  or  repair  the  same,  the  said  board  shall  give  notice  and  information 
in  writing  to  the  corporation  of  the  improvements  and  changes  which  they 
deem  to  be  proper.  And  shall  recommend  to  the  corporation  or  person  or 
persons  owning  or  operating  such  railroad  that  it,  or  he,  or  they  make  such 
repairs,  changes  or  improvements,  or  rebuild  such  bridge,  or  bridges,  on 
such  railroad  as  the  board  shall  deem  necessary,  to  the  safety  of  persons 
being  transported  thereon.  *  *  *  And  said  board  shall,  after  having 
given  said  corporation  or  person  or  persons  operating  such  railroad  an 
opportunity  for  a  full  hearing  thereon,  if  such  corporation  or  person  shall  not 
satisfy  said  board  that  no  action  is  required  to  be  taken  by  it  or  them,  fix 


a  time  within  which  such  changes  or  repairs  shall  be  made,  or  such  bridges, 
tracks  or  trestles  shall  be  rebuilt,  which  time  the  board  may  extend.*  *  *"' 

All  railroads  are  required  by  the  provisions  of  this  section  to  comply 
with  such  recommendations  of  the  board  as  are  just  and  reasonable,  and  pro- 
vision is  made  for  the  enforcement  of  such  recommendations  by  mandamus. 

It  is  claimed,  that  inasmuch  as  this  section  of  the  statute  gives  power 
to  the  board,  in  case  "any  portion  of  the  track  of  any  railroad  in  this  State 
*  *  *  is  in  an  unsafe  condition,"  to  compel  such  track  to  be  rebuilt  or 
such  necessary  changes  or  improvements  to  be  made  as  shall  be  deemed 
necessary  "to  the  safety  of  persons  being  transported  thereon,"  that  there- 
fore, if  it  is  made  to  appear  in  this  case  that  the  track  is  unsafe  because 
of  the  fact  that  the  several  railroads  cross  at  grade,  the  commission  may 
enter  an  order  compelling  the  separation  of  grades. 

We  are  unable  to  concur  in  this  construction  of  the  statute.  This  section 
was  evidently  added,  by  the  Legislature,  to  the  original  Act  creating  the 
commission,  in  order  that  the  commission  might  have  power,  in  case  any 
railroad  bridge,  trestle  or  track  was  found  to  be  out  of  repair  or  in  an 
unsafe  condition,  to  compel  such  company  to  repair  or  rebuild  such  bridge, 
trestle  or  track  or  to  improve  or  change  the  same  so  as  to  make  travel  over 
the  road  reasonably  safe.  The  Legislature  evidently  did  not  have  in  mind, 
when  this  Act  was  passed,  the  dangers  arising  from  grade  crossings,  but 
only  such  dangers  as  might  arise  from  permitting  the  rails,  ties  or  roadbed 
to  become  out  of  repair.  Railroad  crossings  are  not  mentioned  in  this  sec- 
tion, nor  indeed  are  they  mentioned  in  the  Act  which  it  amends.  Had 
it  been  the  intention  of  the  Legislature  to  confer  power  on  this  commission 
to  compel  the  separation  of  grades  how  easy  it  would  have  been  to  have 
said  so. 

Again,  if  the  construction  placed  upon  this  section  by  counsel  for  peti- 
tioner is  correct,  viz:  that  it  gives  to  this  commission  power  to  compel  the 
separation  of  grades,  not  because  any  bridge,  track  or  trestle  is,  in  and  of 
itself,  out  of  repair  or  in  an  unsafe  condition,  but  because  such  track  crosses 
or  is  crossed  by  the  track  of  another  railroad  company  at  grade  and  is 
therefore  unsafe,  then  o  priori  the  commission  is  given  the  power  to  compel 
the  protection  of  such  crossing  by  interlocking  device  or  otherwise.  If, 
under  this  section,  we  have  the  power  to  separate  the  grades  in  order  to 
remove  an  unsafe  condition,  we  certainly  have  the  power  to  compel  the  rail- 
roads interested,  to  interlock  the  crossing  in  lieu  of  a  separation  of  grades, 
if,  in  the  opinion  of  the  commission  such  precaution  would  render  the 
crossing  reasonably  safe. 

So  far  as  we  are  advised,  it  has  never  been  claimed  by  any  one  that  the 
power  of  this  commission  to  compel  the  interlocking  of  existing  crossings 
was  derived  from  the  section  under  consideration.  Such  power  was  never 
exercised  by  this  commission  until  after  the  passage  of  an  Act  in  1891, 
entitled,  "An  Act  to  protect  persons  and  property  from  danger  at  the  cross- 
ings and  junctions  of  railroads  by  providing  a  method  to  compel  the  pro- 
tection of  the  same."  And  in  all  cases  which  have  come  before  the  commis- 
sion its  action  was  based  upon  the  provisions  of  the  last  mentioned  Act. 

If  this  commission  was  granted  the  power  to  separate  grades  or  require 
interlocking  plants  to  be  constructed,  by  the  section  under  consideration, 
what  necessity  was  there  for  the  passage  of  the  crossings  Acts  of  1889  and 
1891?  The  mere  fact  of  the  passage  of  these  Acts,  giving  the  commission 
power  to  compel  interlocking  or  the  separation  of  grades  where  a  new 
crossing  is  about  to  be  constructed,  and  the  protection  of  crossings  already 
constructed,  by  interlocking  devices,  seems  to  us  to  be  conclusive  of  the 
fact  that  this  power  was  not  intended  to  be  conferred  by  the  amendment 
to  the  Act  of  1871. 

That  the  dangers  incident  to  the  operation  of  trains  over  the  crossings 
in  question,  are  very  great,  can  not  be  denied.  That  som'e  plan  should  be 
devised  to  minimize  these  dangers  is  plainly  apparent. 

In  case  of  a  failure  on  the  part  of  the  interested  parties  to  agree  upon  a 
nlan  which  will  afford  protection  to  life  and  property  at  this  crossing,  the 
power  to  compel  such  an  arrangement  might  very  properly  be  lodged  with 


137 

this  commission  or  some  other  proper  authority,  but,  being  of  the  opinion, 
that  under  the  law,  as  it  now  stands,  we  have  no  power  to  grant  the  relief 
prayed  for,  the  motion  to  dismiss  will  be  sustained. 
Dated  this  6th  day  of  August,  1907. 

(Signed)    W.  H.  BOYS,  Chairman. 

B.  A.   ECKHAET,   Commissioner. 
J.   A.    WILLOUGHBY,    Commissioner. 


Cairo  and  Thebes  R.  R.  Co. 

vs. 
Southern   Illinois  and  Missouri  Bridge  Co.  et  al. 

Petition  to  Intersect,  Join  and  Unite  with  the  Tracks  of  the  Bridge  Company 

at  Thebes,  III. 

Petition  filed  June  15,  1907. 

July  8,  1907,  place  of  proposed  intersection  viewed  by  commissioners. 
July  9,  1907,  case  heard  before  the  commission  at  its  office  in  Springfield. 
October  22,  1907,  order  of  the  commission  entered  of  record  as  follows; 

BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 

Cairo  &  Thebes  Railroad  Company 

vs. 

Southern  Illinois  &  Missouri  Bridge  Co. 
Illinois  Central  Railroad  Co. 
St.  Louis  Southwestern  Railroad  Co. 
St.  Louis,  Iron  Mountain  &  Southern  Railway  Co. 
Chicago  &  Eastern  Illinois  Railroad  Co. 

APPEARANCES : 

J.  M.  Hamill  and  William  S.  Dewey,  for  Petitioner. 

John  G.  Drennan,  E.  H.  Seneff,  S.  H.  West,  W.  H.  Miller,  M.  L.  Clardy  and 

Foreman  &  Whitnel,  for  Respondents. 
Walter  Warder,  for  Cairo  Commercial  Club. 

Petition  for  leave  to  connect  tracks. 

The  petition  in  this  case  was  filed  by  the  Cairo  and  Thebes  Railroad 
Company,  a  corporation  organized  under  the  general  railroad  laws  of  this 
State,  with  authority  to  construct,  maintain  and  operate  a  railroad  from 
the  city  of  Cairo  to  the  village  of  Thebes,  both  of  which  are  located  in 
Alexander  county.  The  Southern  Illinois  and  Missouri  Bridge  Company 
is  a  corporation  organized  under  the  general  incorporation  laws  of  this 
State  for  the  purpose  of  building  a  bridge  across  the  Mississippi  river  from 
a  point  in  Alexander  county  to  a  point  opposite  thereto  in  the  State  of 
Missouri.  The  respondent  railroad  companies  are  tenants  of  the  Southern 
Illinois  and  Missouri  Bridge  Company,  and  its  bridge  and  the  approaches 
thereto  on  both  sides  of  the  river  are  used  as  a  part  of  their  respective  lines 
of  railroad.  The  prayer  of  the  petitioner  is  that  it  may  be  permitted  "to 
intersect,  join  and  unite  at  grade  its  tracks  with  the  tracks  of  the  Southern 
Illinois  and  Missouri  Bridge  Company"  at  a  point  particularly  described  in 
the  petition. 

A  preliminary  question  is  raised  in  the  case  by  a  motion  made  by  the 
respondents  to  dismiss  the  petition  for  want  of  jurisdiction  in  this  commis- 
sion. 


138 

It  appears  that  the  bridge  company  was  organized  under  the  general  in- 
corporation laws  of  this  State,  section  1  of  which  is  as  follows: 

"That  corporations  may  be  formed  in  the  manner  provided  by  this  Act 
for  any  lawful  purpose  except  banking,  insurance,  real  estate  brokerage,  the 
operation  of  railroads  and  the  business  of  loaning  money:  Provided,  that 
horse  and  dummy  railroads  and  organizations  for  the  purchase  and  sale  of 
real  estate  for  burial  purposes  only  may  be  organized  and  conducted  under 
the  provisions  of  this  Act:  And,  provided,  further,  that  corporations  formed 
for  the  purpose  of  constructing  railroad  bridges  shall  not  be  held  to  be  rail- 
road corporations." 

It  is  insisted  that  this  commission  is  purely  a  creature  of  the  statute  and 
possesses  no  power  except  what  the  statutes  expressly  confers,  and  that  while 
it  is  expressly  given  jurisdiction  where  one  railroad  company  desires  to  cross 
(or  intersect)  with  its  track  or  tracks  the  main  track  of  another  railroad 
company,  still,  that  inasmuch  as  the  bridge  company  is  not  a  railroad  com- 
pany, its  motion  to  dismiss  for  want  of  jurisdiction  should  be  sustained. 

Section  19  of  the  general  railroad  law  provides: 

"Every  corporation  formed  under  this  Act  shall,  in  addition  to  the  powers 
hereinbefore  conferred,  have  power  ******* 

"Sixth — To  cross,  intersect,  join  and  unite  its  railways  with  any  other 
railway  before  constructed,  at  any  point  in  its  route,  and  upon  the  grounds 
of  such  other  railway  company.  ******" 

Section  9  of  the  Act  of  Congress  authorizing  the  construction  of  this  bridge 
across  the  Mississippi  river  is  as  follows: 

"That  all  railroad  companies  desiring  the  use  of  any  bridge  constructed 
under  this  Act  shall  have,  and  be  entitled  to,  equal  rights  and  privileges 
relative  to  the  passage  of  railway  trains  and  cars  over  the  same  and  over 
the  approaches  thereto,  upon  payment  of  a  reasonable  compensation  for  such 
use.  *******" 

Under  these  provisions  there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  right  or  power 
of  the  petitioner  to  connect  its  tracks  with  the  tracks  of  the  bridge  com- 
pany, nor  is  there  any  doubt  as  to  the  duty  of  the  bridge  company  to  permit 
such  connection.  Indeed,  the  bridge  company  makes  no  objection  to  a 
connection,  but  does  object  to  the  particular  connection  selected  by  the  peti- 
tioner. Because  of  its  inability  to  agree  with  respondents  upon  the  place 
of  connection,  the  petitioner  filed  this  petition  on  the  theory  that  by  virtue 
of  the  authority  conferred  by  an  Act  entitled,  "An  Act  in  relation  to  the  cross- 
ing of  one  railroad  by  another,  and  to  prevent  danger  to  life  and  property 
from  grade  crossings,"  this  commission  had  the  power  to  prescribe  the  place 
where  and  the  manner  in  which  the  connection  should  be  made. 

Section  1  of  the  Act  last  referred  to,  as  it  stood  at  the  time  of  filing  the 
petition,  was  as  follows: 

"That  hereafter  any  railroad  company  desiring  to  cross  with  its  tracks 
the  main  line  of  another  railroad  company,  shall  construct  the  crossing  at 
such  place  and  in  such  manner  as  will  not  unnecessarily  impede  or  endan- 
ger the  travel  or  transportation  upon  the  railway  so  crossed.  If  in  any 
case  objection  be  made  to  the  place  or  mode  of  crossing  proposed  by  the 
company  desiring  the  same,  either  party  may  apply  to  the  Board  of  Rail- 
road and  Warehouse  Commissioners,  and  it  shall  be  their  duty  to  view  the 
ground  and  give  all  parties  interested  an  opportunity  to  be  heard.  After 
full  investigation,  and  with  due  regard  to  safety  of  life  and  property,  said 
board  shall  give  a  decision  prescribing  the  place  where  and  the  manner  in 
which  such  crossing  shall  be  made.  *******" 

By  a  subsequent  section  of  the  statute  it  is  provided  that  every  junction 
of  two  or  more  railroad  tracks  shall  be  taken  and  deemed  to  be  a  crossing; 
and  consequently  if,  under  the  facts  in  this  case  the  commis'sion  would  have 
jurisdiction  had  the  petitioner  asked  for  a  crossing  instead  of  a  connec- 
tion, then  it  necessarily  follows,  we  think,  that,  it  has  jurisdiction  in  this 
case. 

The  question  then  is,  whether  or  not  the  Legislature  intended  by  the  use 
of  the  words  "railroad  company,"  in  the  last  section  quoted,  to  limit  the 
power  of  this  commission  to  cases  where  one  railroad  corporation,  actively 


139 

engaged  in  the  business  for  which  it  was  organized,  desired  to  cross  or 
intersect  with  its  tracks  the  tracks  of  another  corporation  similiarly  organ- 
ized and  engaged. 

In  the  case  of  Chicago  Dock  Company  vs.  Garrity,  et  al.,  115  111.,  155,  the 
court  had  under  consideration  the  ninetieth  clause  of  section  1  of  article  5 
of  the  City  and  Village  Act,  which  declares: 

"The  city  council  or  board  of  trustees  shall  have  no  power  to  grant  the  use 
of,  or  the  right  to  lay  down,  any  railroad  tracks  in  any  street  of  the  city 
to  any  steam  or  horse  railroad  company,  except  on  a  petition  of  the  owners 
of  the  land  representing  more  than  one-half  of  the  frontage  of  the  street. 

The  Court  said: 

"It  is  very  clear  that  'natural  persons'  are  here  within  the  intention, 
although  not  within  the  letter,  of  the  Act,  for  the  injury  against  which 
protection  is  intended  to  be  afforded  is  the  laying  of  railroad  tracks  in  the 
streets.  By  whom  the  tracks  shall  be  laid  and  the  cars  thereon  operated 
is,  manifestly,  of  no  consequence  whatever.  The  same  results,  in  all  re- 
spects, will  follow  the  laying  of  railroad  tracks  in  the  streets  and  oper- 
ating cars  thereon  by  individuals  as  will  follow  the  laying  of  them  by  cor- 
porations. The  use  of  the  word  'company,'  we  have  no  doubt,  was  simply 
because  such  tracks  are  almost  always  laid  and  operated  by  companies.  The 
clause  should  be  read  as  including  both  corporations  and  individuals." 

If  the  words  "railroad  company"  include  "natural  persons,"  why  may  they 
not  include  a  bridge  company,  which  is  expressly  authorized  by  its  charter 
to  construct,  maintain  and  own  railroad  tracks? 

The  object  the  Legislature  had  in  view  in  passing  the  Act  in  question  was, 
among  other  things,  "to  prevent  danger  to  life  and  property,"  and  no  one 
will  contend  that  the  tracks  of  the  bridge  company  are  less  dangerous  be- 
cause the  corporation  which  owns  them  is  organized  under  the  General 
Incorporation  Act,  instead  of  under  the  Railroad  Act. 

The  case  above  referred  to  was  approved  and  followed  in  McCann  vs.  The 
People  ex  rel,  194  111.,  526. 

In  the  case  of  Village  of  London  Mills  vs.  White,  208  111.,  289,  the  Act  re- 
lating to  telegraph  companies,  section  4  of  which  provides,  "No  such  com- 
pany shall  have  the  right,"  etc.,  was  under  consideration.  The  court  said: 

"Appellants  contend  that  the  Act  of  which  section  4  supra  is  a  part 
applies  only  to  corporations.  In  so  far  as  the  Act  confers  the  power  of 
eminent  domain,  this  is  true;  but  in  so  far  as  it  prescribes  the  method  for 
obtaining  the  consent  of  corporate  authorities  to  the  erection  of  poles  and 
the  stringing  of  wires,  it  must  be  held  applicable  both  to  corporations  and 
natural  persons.  Following  the  reasoning  of  this  Court,  in  Chicago  Dock 
Company  vs.  Garrity,  115  111.,  155,  'the  clause  should  read  as  including  both 
corporations  and  individuals.'  " 

Our  predecessors  had  occasion  to  consider  this  question  in  the  case  of 
C.,  M.  &  St.  P.  Ry.  C'o.  vs.  Goddards  et  al.,  2  Opinions  of  Commission  16,  and 
there  said: 

"It  may  be  insisted  that  the  respondents  are  not  a  rairoad  company  within 
the  meaning  of  the  statute,  for  the  reason  that  the  franchise  is  granted  to 
Alpheus  P.  Goddard  and  Alpheus  J.  Goddard,  as  individuals.  But,  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  they  are  to  operate  their  road  in  connection  with 
the  General  Electric  Company  a  railroad  operated  by  a  corporation,  and 
that  their  said  road  is  to  be  a  part  of  that  system,  and  in  view  of  the  further 
fact  that  the  statute,  section  one,  provides  that  hereafter  any  railroad 
company  (not  a  corporation)  desiring  to  cross  the  main  track  of  another 
railroad  company  shall  construct  its  crossings  in  such  a  manner  as  not  to 
unnecessarily  impede  or  endanger  the  travel  of  said  road,  we  are  of  the 
opinion,  and  so  hold,  that  for  the  purpose  of  this  Act,  that  any  person, 
company  or  corporation  desiring  to  cross  another  railroad  track  with  a 
railroad  track,  must  cross  it  at  such  place  and  in  such  a  way  that  it  will 
not  unnecessarily  impede  or  endanger  the  travel  of  the  railroad  company  so 
crossed;  and  that  it  will  not  unnecessarily  endanger  the  lives  or  property  of 
the  public,  regardless  of  whether  it  is  a  railroad  corporation  or  an  individ- 
ual, the  law  applying  itself,  and  not  to  the  owners  or  operators." 


140 

While  we  agree  with  the  conclusion  of  our  predecessors  on  this  question 
and  believe  that  the  construction  placed  by  them,  upon  the  section  in  ques- 
tion is  the  correct  one,  nevertheless  we  think  there  are  facts  in  this  case 
which  completely  and  without  any  question  justify  our  action  in  overruling 
the  respondents'  motion. 

By  its  charter  from  the  State  of  Illinois  and  the  Act  of  Congress,  the 
bridge  company  was  authorized  to  construct  a  bridge  across  the  Mississippi 
river  and  the  necessary  approaches  thereto  in  order  to  provide  for  the  pass- 
.age  of  railway  trains  and  cars. 

In  the  construction  of  its  bridge  it  found  it  necessary  to  build  about  two 
miles  of  double  track  railroad  on  the  east  and  and  a  like  amount  on  the  west 
side  of  the  river,  and  now  owns  and  controls  four  miles  of  double  track  rail- 
road exclusive  of  the  tracks  on  the  bridge  proper. 

Under  certain  contracts  or  leases,  no  less  than  four  or  five  railroad  com- 
panies, operating  in  the  aggregate  a  very  large  number  of  trains,  use  these 
tracks  and  this  bridge  as  a  part  of  their  respective  railroads. 

The  bridge  company  owns  neither  engines  nor  cars,  and  its  railroad  tracks 
are  intruth  and  in  fact  used  exclusively  and  operated  by  its  railroad  tenants. 
Therefore,  the  tracks  which  the  petitioner  seeks  to  connect  with  are  by  rea- 
son of  such  leases  or  contracts  the  tracks  of  "another  railroad  company"  or 
companies,  and  are  therefore  not  only  within  the  spirit  of  the  Act  conferring 
jurisdiction  on  this  commission,  but  are  within  its  literal  terms. 

One  other  reason  is  suggested  why  respondents'  motion  to  dismiss  should 
be  sustained.  It  is  insisted  that  if  the  bridge  company  is  held  to  be  a  "rail- 
road company,"  that  then  it  is  a  railroad  company  engaged  exclusively  in 
interstate  commerce,  and  that  section  1  of  the  Hepburn  Act  gives  to  the 
Interstate  Commerce  Commission  exclusive  jurisdiction  to  determine  the 
mode,  place  and  manner  of  making  connections  with  interstate  roads  by 
lateral  or  branch  lines  of  railroads.  We  have  carefully  examined  the  Act  in 
question  and  are  of  opinion  that  it  in  no  way  limits  the  power  of  this  com- 
mission to  pass  upon  the  question  presented  by  the  petition  filed  in  this 
case. 

For  the  reasons  above  stated,  the  motion  of  the  respondents  to  dismiss  the 
petition  for  want  of  jurisdiction  is  denied. 

The  property  of  the  bridge  company  consists  of  a  double  track  steel  rail- 
road bridge,  one-half  mile  or  more  in  length.  At  the  east  end  of  the  bridge 
proper  is  a  concrete  viaduct  about  325  feet  in  length  and  approximately 
eighty-five  feet  above  the  level  of  the  ground.  At  the  east  end  this  viaduct 
connects  with  an  embankment,  which  at  the  point  of  connection  is  forty  or 
fifty  feet  above  the  level  of  the  ground.  This  embankment  extends  for  a 
considerable  distance  east  of  this  connection.  The  bridge  company  have  and 
maintain  over  this  bridge,  viaduct  and  embankment  a  double  track  railroad. 
The  point  of  connection  selected  by  the  petitioners  is  360  feet  east  of  the 
east  end  of  the  concrete  viaduct.  The  respondents  object  to  the  connection 
being  made  at  this  point  and  suggest  a  point  about  4,000  feet  east  of  the  east 
end  of  the  bridge.  It  seems  to  be  conceded  by  all  parties  that  the  point  of 
.  connection  should  be  protected  by  an  interlocker,  regardless  of  whether  it  is 
made  at  the  place  selected  by  the  petitioner  or  the  one  suggested  by  the 
respondents. 

The  only  question  in  the  case  on  which  there  seems  to  be  a  difference  of 
opinion  is  as  to  the  proper  place  to  make  the  connection. 

If  the  connection  is  made  at  the  point  selected  by  the  petitioner,  the  west 
derails  on  the  bridge  company's  tracks  must  be  placed  about  120  feet  out 
on  the  concrete  viaduct,  if  the  rule  of  the  commission  requiring  it  to  be 
placed  at  least  500  feet  from  the  fouling  point  is  "observed. 

A  large  number  of  expert  witnesses  were  examined  by  both  petitioner  and 
respondents.  Without  reviewing  the  evidence  in  detail,  it  is  sufficient  to  say 
that  the  witnesses  examined  by  the  petitioner  expressed  the  opinion  that 
the  point  of  connection  near  the  end  of  the  bridge  could  be  properly  and 
adequately  protected  by  an  interlocker  and  could  be  made  equally  as  safe 
as  the  one  suggested  by  respondents.  On  the  other  hand,  the  witnesses 
examined  by  respondents  were  all  of  the  opinion  that  the  connection  at  the 
end  of  the  bridge  could  not  be  properly  protected  by  an  interlocker;  that 


141 

if  a  train  should  be  derailed  on  the  concrete  viaduct  the  consequences  would 
be  m,uch  more  serious  than  they  would  be  if  such  derailment  occurred  at  a 
point  off  of  the  bridge  and  where  the  ground  was  comparatively  level  and 
therefore  that  the  proper  place  for  the  connection  was  at  the  point  suggested 
by  the  respondents. 

That  the  connection  near  the  bridge  is  much  more  desirable  from  the 
petitioner's  standpoint  must  be  conceded.  The  point  selected  by  the  bridge 
company  would  lengthen  petitioner's  line  about  1,300  or  1,400  feet  and  conse- 
quently increase  the  expense.  Its  approach  to  th,e  connection  at  the  end  of 
the  bridge  is  on  a  tangent,  while  its  approach  to  the  connection  suggested  by 
the  bridge  company  is  on  a  curve.  The  grade  of  its  tracks  approaching  the 
connection  at  the  end  of  the  bridge  would  be  three-tenths  of  one  per  cent, 
thus  agreeing  with  the  maximum  grade  on  its  entire  line,  while  the  grade 
on  the  bridge  company's  track  from  the  point  of  connection  suggested  by 
respondents  to  the  east  end  of  the  concrete  viaduct  is  five-tenths  of  one 
per  cent. 

If  we  were  permitted  to  view  the  question  from  the  petitioner's  standpoint 
alone,  we  would  have  no  hesitancy  in  saying  that  the  proper  place  to  make 
the  connection  is  the  one  it  has  selected. 

The  statute,  however,  requires  that  the  connection  be  made  "at  such  point 
and  in  such  manner  as  will  not  unnecessarily  impede  or  endanger  the  travel 
or  transportation  upon  the  railway  so  crossed,"  and  it  is  therefore  our  duty 
to  view  the  situation  from  an  impartial  standpoint  and  prescribe  a  place  and 
manner  of  connection  as  favorable  to  the  petitioner  as  can  be  selected,  but 
still  one  which  will  not  unnecessarily  impede  or  endanger  travel  or  trans- 
portation on  the  bridge  company's  tracks. 

From  our  view  of  the  premises  and  the  evidence  offered  at  the  hearing 
we  are  of  the  opinion  that  it  would  be  a  very  dangerous  thing  to  permit  this 
connection  to  be  made  right  at  the  mouth  of  the  bridge.  In  the  first  place  it 
would  congest  traffic  at  this  point  and  thus  make  it  much  more  difficult  for 
the  bridge  company  to  lay  additional  tracks  on  the  approach,  to  take  care  of 
increased  business.  Then,  again,  the  evidence  shows  that  there  are  from 
thirty  to  forty  regular  trains  operated  over  the  bridge  daily  at  the  present 
time  and  well  founded  reasons  are  suggested  why  a  very  material  increase 
may  reasonably  be  expected  in  the  near  future.  It  can  hardly  be  claimed 
that  the  large  amount  of  traffic  now  passing  over  this  bridge  should  be 
seriously  interfered  with,  in  order  that  the  petitioner  with  its  twenty-five 
miles  of  main  line  may,  with, less  expense  and  more  conveniently  transact 
its  business. 

But  aside  from  other  objections  that  have  been  urged,  we  are  firmly  con- 
vinced that  to  permit  the  connection  at  the  place  proposed  by  petitioner 
would  "unnecessarily  endanger  the  travel  or  transportation"  over  the  bridge 
company's  tracks.  Believing  this  to  be  true,  our  duty  is  plain.  We  can  not 
balance  the  additional  expense  and  inconvenience  to  petitioner  against  the 
loss  of  life  or  limb. 

It  is  therefore  ordered  and  decided  that  petitioner,  the  Cairo  and  Thebes 
Railroad  Company,  have  leave  to  intersect,  join  and  unite  at  grade  its  tracks 
with  the  tracks  of  the  Southern  Illinois  and  Missouri  Bridge  Company  at  a 
point  about  4,000  feet  northeast  of  the  east  end  of  the  bridge  across  the 
Mississippi  river  at  Thebes  with  another  connection  at  a  point  about  1,500 
feet  northeast  of  the  point  last  mentioned,  both  of  which  points  are  more 
particularly  shown  and  described  on  a  plat  offered  in  evidence  in  this  cause 
and  marked  "Defendant's  Exhibit  A,"  the  right  of  way  for  such  connections 
being  first  obtained  as  provided  by  law. 

It  is  further  ordered  and  decided  that  such  connections  be  protected  by  a 
proper  and  adequate  interlocking  device  to  be  installed  and  maintained  by 
and  at  the  expense  of  the  Cairo  and  Thebes  Railroad  Company;  that  the 
Cairo  and  Thebes  Railroad  Company  cause  to  be  prepared  and  presented  to 
this  commission  without  unnecessary  delay  complete  and  detailed  plans  and 
specifications  of  the  interlocking  plant  proposed  to  be  installed  for  the 
approval  of  this  commission.  This  cause  will  be  taken  under  advisement 
and  a  final  order  entered  upon  presentation  of  plans  and  specifications  for 


142 

such  interlocking  plant  and  the  approval  of  the  same,  at  which  time  the 
division  of  the  expense  of  the  operation  of  such  plant  will  be  determined 
by  the  commission,  unless  the  parties  in  interest  shall  have  agreed  upon 
such  division. 

Dated  this  17th  day  of  October,  A.  D.  1907. 

W.  H.  BOYS,  Chairman, 

B.  A.  ECKHART,  Commissioner, 

J.  A.  WILLOUGHBY,  Commissionet . 


Chaffin  Coal  Company, 

vs. 

Michigan  Central  R.  R.  Co. 
and  Chicago,  Rock  Island  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 

Complaint  of  Excessive  Switching  Charges  in  Chicago. 

Petition  filed  March  26,  1907. 

May  9,   1907.     Case  set   for   hearing  at  the  office  of   the  commission   in 
Chicago. 

May  9,  1907.    Case  dismissed  by  agreement  of  all  parties  concerned. 


L.  L.  Emmerson  and  others, 

vs. 
Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  R.  R.  Co. 

Petition  for  Depot  and  Side  Track  Facilities  at  Emmersonville.  III. 

Petition  filed  March  29,  1907. 

July  11,  1907.     Case  heard  before  the  commission. 

August  6,  1907.     Notice  received  that  the  case  had  been  settled  by  agree- 
ment and  case  dismissed. 


W.  A.  Challacombe, 

vs. 
Chicago,  Peoria  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co.,  of  Illinois. 

Complaint  of  Removal  of  Station  and  Side  Track,  Challacombe.  III. 
Petition  filed  April  5,  1907. 


Johnson  Transfer  and  Fuel  Co.,  Bloomington,  111., 

vs. 
Lake  Erie  &  Western  R.  R.  Co. 

Complaint  of  Excessive  Switching  Charge. 

Petition  filed  May  6,  1907. 

June  4,  1907.    Case  on  call  for  hearing;  complainant  not  represented.    Case 
dismissed. 


Henry  I.  Green,  Urbana,  111., 

vs. 
Baltimore  &  Ohio  Southwestern  R.  R.  Co. 

Complaint  of  Excessive  Charge  on  L.  C.  L.  Shipment  of  Lime  Stone  Dust. 

June  4,  1907,  case  heard  and  charge  found  correct  under  present  classifica- 
tion.   Classification  changed  to  cover  lime  stone  dust,  car  loads  and  less. 
Case  dismissed. 


Southern  Illinois  Milling  and  Elevator  Co.,  Murphysboro,  111., 

vs. 
Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company. 

Comfplaint  of  Excessive  Charge  for  Sivitching  at  Murphysboro,  III. 

Petition  filed  May  15,  1907. 

June  4,  1907,  case  heard  by  commission. 

August  6,  1907,  findings  of  the  commission  entered  of  record  as  follows: 

BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 

Southern  Illinois  Milling  and  Elevator  Co., 

vs. 
Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company. 

Overcharge  for  Switching. 

APPEARANCES : 

MCELVAIN   &   GLENN,   for   Petitioners. 
JOHN  G.  DRENNAN,  for  Respondent. 

It  is  alleged  in  the  petition  filed  in  this  case  that  the  petitioner  owns  and 
operates  a  mill  and  elevator  at  Murphysboro,  111.;  that  it  is  located  within 
one  hundred  feet  of  the  station  of  the  respondent  and  upon  one  of  its  side 
tracks;  that  on  or  about  January  24,  1907,  the  respondent  company,  having 
transported  a  certain  car  loaded  with  coal  from  the  Harrison  mine  to  the 
mill  and  elevator  of  the  petitioner,  demanded  and  charged  for  this  service 
the  sum  of  $7.50;  that  the  mill  and  elevator  of  petitioner  and  the  Harrison 
mine  are  both  within  the  yard  limits  of  the  respondent  company  at  Murphys- 
boro, and  that  the  transportation  of  the  car  in  question  was  performed  by  a 
switch  engine. 

It  is  further  alleged  that  on  January  16,  1907,  the  respondent  company 
charged  the  petitioner  $7.50  for  switching  a  car  of  coal  from  another  mine 
known  as  Mine  Number  Six  to  the  mill  and  elevator  of  the  respondent  at 
Murphysboro,  and  that  said  Mine  Number  Six  is  within  the  yard  limits  of 
the  respondent  at  Murphysboro. 

It  is  further  alleged  that  both  of  these  mines  are  located  within  three 
miles  of  the  petitioner's  mill  and  elevator. 

None  of  the  facts  stated  in  the  petition  are  denied  in  the  answer  filed  by 
the  respondent,  but  it  is  contended  that  the  service  performed  in  moving 
these  two  cars  was  not  a  switching  service,  but  were  regular  hauls  of  freight 
for  which  the  respondent  had  the  right  to  charge  the  rates  authorized  by  the 
regular  distance  tariff. 

The  evidence  in  the  case  fully  sustains  the  allegations  made  in  the  peti- 
tion, and  it  was  further  shown  that  for  the  past  two  or  three  years  the 
respondent  company  had  charged  the  petitioner  for  switching  cars  from  those 
two  mines  $7.50  per  car.  The  charges  thus  made  were  paid  by  the  petitioner 
under  protest,  and  only  after  the  respondent  threatened  to  refuse  to  perform 
the  service  at  all. 

In  the  case  of  Weber  vs.  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company,  decided  Decem- 
ber 4,  1906,  we  had  occasion  to  examine  the  rule  relating  to  switching,  known 
as  Rule  Number  23,  and  there  held,  on  facts  similar  to  those  presented,  in 


the  case  under  consideration,   t.hai.   Itui*   Number   2  .1   r.hat  r.he 

respondent,  in  r.n.-if.  <-.w.,  in  rharwlriK  ;>  Hum  in  excess  of  $4.00  per  car,  was 
guilty  of  a  violation  of  :-mrh  nil':. 

We  have  carefully  reconsidered  the  grounds  for  that  decision  and  have 
arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  the  decision,  on  the  facts  presented,  was  right. 
It  is  unnecessary  to  again  repeat  the  reasons  which  influ^nrcd  us  in  arriv- 
ing at  the  conclusion  there  announced,  and  as,  the  fact.*  in  mil  case  bring 
it  squarely  within  the  Weber  case,  we  are  of  op 

charging  more  than  $4.oo  per  car  for  the  service  performed,  as  set  forth  in 
the  petition,  was  and  is  guilty  of  extortion. 

(Signer!)     W.  H.  BOVM,  Chairman. 

B.  A,  ECKHAKT,   Cr/mmititioner, 
.].    A.    Wn.r.ot  OHBV,    Committioner. 
this  6th  day  of  August,  1&07. 


of  Oregon,  III., 

v$. 

Chicago  ft  Northwestern  Ry.  Co.  and 
Chicago,  Burlington  it  Quincy  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  for  "Y"  Conner.tir/n  at  Kochelle,  III. 

Petition  filed  May  20,  I!W. 

August  6,  1&07,  matter  settled  by  agreement,  respondent  companies  agreeing 
to  make  the  connection  and  case 


Frank  M.  Annls,  Aurora,  111. 

tut 

Illinois,  Iowa  it  Minnesota  Ry.  Ot 

(JompUtint  of  In*ufflf;i(-.nt  Pa**enger  Hervice, 

Petition  filed  June  24,  1907. 

December  5,  1*07,  case  heard  by  the  comraimiion  and  taken  under  advise- 
ment. 

Peoria,  Lincoln  it  Springfield  Traction  Co., 

ML 
Chicago  ft  Alton  Ry.  Co. 

Petitifm  to  fix  Plat:e  and  Manner  of  Crowing  Near  Minier,  III. 

Petition  filed  June  28,  1&07. 

July  10,  K»07,  pla^;e  of  proposed  crossing  viewed  by  commission. 

August  6,  Id07,  rase  heard  by  the  commission. 

August  8,  1*07,  order  of  the  commission  entered  of  record  as  follows: 

nit.  RAII,K/>AJ>  A*J>  WAKCHOCMK  COMMMKIO*  or  Tier  STATE  OK  II.MNOI.S. 

i 

Peoria,  Lincoln  ft  Springfield  Traction  Co., 

ML 
Chicago  ft  Alton  Railroad  Co. 

'/n  to  cronn  the  track*  of  the  Chicago  >'-  /,<,'/</  <';mvanv  between 

Minier  and  Hopeaale,  III. 

In  the  above  entitled  cause  the  following  order  is  entered  by  agreem« 
1.    Permission  is  hereby  given  the  Peoria,  Lincoln  ft  Kprin^flcl'i  Traction 
Company  to  cross  the  right  of  way  and  over  the  main  track  of  th 


U5 

&  Alton   Kaiiroan  Company  ;n   Die  place  mentioned  In  the  petition  filed  in 

I  In-  above  <-ni  i  I  |ci|   ca  n:-.e 

2  I  IK  i  I..-I..H  of  the  Chicago  it  Alton  Railroad  Company  shall  remain  at 
the  present  grade  and  the  track*  of  the  Peorla,  Lincoln  and  Springfield 
'iia'iH.n  (  'oinp.-iii  •.  :-;li;ill  be  carried  over  the  same  by  means  of  a  timber 
trestle  so  as  to  give  a  clear  bead  room  between  the  top  of  the  rails  of  the 
Haid  Chicago  ft  Alton  Kaihuad  company  ;<n'i  i  he  lowest  part  of  the  super- 
iin'iiire  of  the  umiiei  u<  H.  oi  UK  I'eoria,  Lincoln  ft  Springfield  Traction 
Company  of  not  IBBH  than  twenty  two  (22)  feet  and  no  part  of  said  structure 
:.;|,;ill  ),<•  wiiliin  inn'-  <!»)  feet  and  two  (2)  incben  of  tin-  center  HIM-  of  Die 
main  Iracl  .,1  said  C|,j,-a;-o  &  Allon  Railroad  Company  ;iH  the  Hame  is  now 
laid. 

3.  The  bridge  or  trestle  carrying  the  tracks  of  the  Peorla,  Lincoln  ft 
Springfield  Traction  company  Khali  be  of  standard  railroad  construction,  of 
sufficient  strength  to  safely  carry  the  trains  and  cars  of  said  Peorla,  Lincoln 
ft  Springfield  Traction  Company.  The  wori<  of  construction  thereof  shall  be 
done  so  an  not  in  mi<  rfere  wIDi  the  operation  of  trains  and  cars  over  the 
iraci<H  of  the  said  Chicago  ft  Alton  Railroad  Company. 

i  The  gradient  of  the  approaches  to  the  said  trestle  shall  be  two  and  a 
half  (2%)  feet  in  each  one  hundred  (100)  feet  and  the  grade  shall  be  con- 
::iiuHed  of  earth  wiih  i  he  exception  of  one  hundred  and  twenty-four  (124) 
feet  of  trestle,  spanning  the  right  of  way  of  Haid  Chicago  ft  Alton  Railroad 
Company.  'I  IK  ;i  vi-i  ace  widib  nl  DM-  roadway  on  Haid  earth  approaches 
•hall  he  eighteen  (18)  feet,  with  a  slope  of  one  and  a  half  to  one  (I1/!  to  1). 

5.  The  said  trestle  shall  be  constructed  In  a  good  and  nubHtantlal  manner 
and  in  accordance  with  the  plan  thereof  herewith  filed  and  to  the  satisfac- 
tion of  the  Board  of  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commissioners  of  the  State  Of 
Illinois. 

6.  The  said  Peorla,  Lincoln  ft  Springfield  Traction  Company  shall  main- 
tain the  Haid  timber  trestle  and  approaches  in  good  condition  and  repair  at 
Its  own  sole  cost  and  expense. 

7.  In  UK    <vent  said  Chicago  ft  Alton  Railroad  Company  shall  desire  to 
construct  additional  tracks  upon  its  right  of  way  where  the  same  Is  crossed 
by  the  timber  trestle  of  said  Peoria,  Lincoln  ft  Springfield  Traction  Com- 
pany,   DM-    i.aid    I'eorla,    Lincoln    &    Springfield    Traction    Company   shall    re 
.IM..IIKO  the  said  trestle  so  as  to  permit  the  construction  of  such  additional 
tracks,  providing  for  such  additional  tracks  the  same  clearance  and  head 
room   a:,   in   UK-  original   track  Hlia.ll   be  provided,  and  the  divlBion  of  the  cost 
thereof  shall  be  determined  by  the  commission  when  such  additional  tracks 

a  i  <•   COIIM!  riicl  c(| 

H.    The  cost  of  the  overhead  crossing  of  the  tracks  of  the  Chicago  ft  Alton 

K.tilioad  Company    l.y   Die  InicltH  of  Die   I'eoria,   Lincoln  &   Springfield  TraeDon 
CompaiiN    iihall   lie  borne  an  ben-liiiifler  determined   by  Die  commiHKion. 

!•  Tin-  work  herelnabove  contemplated  shall  be  fully  and  finally  com- 
pleted on  or  before  January  1,  1908. 

lo.    Tliln  cause  is  continued  to  the  September  meeting,  1907. 

(Signed)     W.  H.  BOVH,  Chairman. 

\;-.l.-i'i|    In 

I,     Iv    KISIIIK,   for  Traction   Company. 
.IAMKH  MM.KH,  for  C.  ft  A.  R.  R.  Co. 
Kllcd   AiiKUHt  8,  1907. 

BCfOBI    MM    IUII.KOAD  AMI  WAUKIIOUHK  COMMIHHKW  OK  TIIK  STATK  OK  ILMIVOIH. 

I'eoria,   Lincoln  &  Sprlnnlield   Traction   Co., 
VS. 

C|ilca:-.n    \     Alton     Ifailroa.l     Co 

Supplemental  Order. 
On  the  8th  day  of  August,  A.  I).  1907,  an  order  was  entered  in  thin 


antlioi  l/inK    tin-    pHii  loner    in    .  i  OHH    wllb    I!H    proposed    line   of    railway   by 

—io  O 


146 

means  of  an  overhead  crossing  the  railway  of  the  respondent  company  at 
the  point  mentioned  in  the  petition  filed  herein. 

The  only  question  to  be  determined  at  this  time  is  whether  or  not  the 
respondent  company  shall  be  required  to  pay  any  part  of  the  cost  of  separat- 
ing the  grades  at  this  point,  and  if  so,  the  proportion  it  shall  be  required  to 
bear. 

We  have  carefully  considered  the  suggestions  of  counsel  concerning  the 
division  of  expense  of  separating  the  grades  at  this  point  and  have  arrived 
at  the  conclusion  that  in  all  ordinary  cases  it  is  only  fair  and  equitable  that 
the  senior  road  should  bear  one-third  of  such  expense. 

It  is  therefore  ordered  and  decided  that  the  expense  of  the  separation  of 
grades  at  the  proposed  crossing  shall  be  borne  and  paid  by  the  railroads 
interested  in  the  following  proportion,  to-wit: 

The  petitioner  shall  pay  two-thirds  of  the  expense  of  separating  said  grades 
and  the  respondent  shall  pay  one-third  of  such  expense. 

Dated  this  3d  day  of  December,  A.  D.  1907. 

W.  H.  BOYS,  Chairman. 

B.  A.   ECKHABT,   Commissioner. 

J.   A.   WILLOUGHBY,    Commissioner. 


Peoria,  Lincoln  &  Springfield  Traction  Co., 

vs. 
Cleveland,  Cincinnati,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  to  Fix  Place  and  Manner  of  Crossing  over  Peoria  &  Eastern  Ry. 
Division  of  Above  Railway  near  Mackinaw. 

Petition  filed  June  28,  1907. 

July  10,  1907,  place  of  proposed  crossing  viewed  by  commission. 

August  6,  1907,  case  heard  by  commission. 

August  10,  1907,  order  of  the  commission  entered  of  record  as  follows: 

BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 
At  their  August  meeting,  A.  D.  1907. 

Commissioners: 

Hon.  Wm.  H.  Boys,  Chairman, 
Hon.  J.  A.  Willoughby, 
Hon.  B.  A.  Eckhart. 

In  the  matter  of  the  Peoria,  Lincoln  &  Springfield  Traction  Company  vs. 
Cleveland,  Cincinnati,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis  Railway  Company  and  Peoriat  & 
Eastern  Railway  Company. 

Petition  for  Crossing. 

Now,  on  this  day  said  cause  coming  on  for  hearing  before  said  Board  of 
Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commissioners;  the  petitioner  appearing  by  H.  J. 
Hamlin  and  George  B.  Gillespie,  its  attorneys;  respondent  appearing  by 
George  C.  Ryder,  its  attorney;  and  said  commissioners  having  heretofore 
viewed  the  place  for  proposed  crossing  and  having  heard  the  evidence  sub- 
mitted by  the  petitioner  and  respondent,  it  is  considered  and  ordered  that 
the  petitioner,  Peoria,  Lincoln  &  Springfield  Traction  Company,  may,  with 
its  proposed  line  of  railway  cross  under  the  railway  of  the  Cleveland,  Cin- 
cinnati, Chicago  &  St.  Louis  Railway  Company  and  the  Peoria  &  Eastern 
Railway  Company  at  the  point  described  in  the  petition  filed  herein,  to-wit: 
At  a  point  near  the  section  line  between  sections  18  and  19,  township  23, 


range  2  west  of  the  second  P.  M.,  in  the  county  of  Tazewell,  State  of  Illinois, 
as  located  by  the  engineers  of  the  petitioner;  which  location  is  shown  as 
indicated  by  certain  stakes,  marks  and  monuments  located  by  the  engineers 
of  said  petitioner  along  the  location  line  of  its  proposed  railway. 

It  is  further  ordered  that  there  shall  be  a  clearance  of  sixteen  feet  between 
the  top  of  the  rails  of  petitioner's  road  and  a  roof  or  support,  which  shall 
be  constructed  over  the  same  to  support  the  railway  of  the  Cleveland,  Cin- 
cinnati, Chicago  &  St.  Louis  Railway  Company  and  the  Peoria  &  Eastern 
Railway  Company,  and  that  the  subway  under  said  railway  through  which 
the  railway  of  the  petitioner  is  to  pass  shall  be  of  the  width  of  eighteen  feet. 

It  is  further  ordered  that  the  petitioner,  at  or  before  the  next  meeting  of 
this  board,  shall  file  with  its  secretary  full  and  complete  estimates  and  specifi- 
cations of  the  cost,  manner  of  crossing  and  of  the  structures  to  be  used  in 
constructing  said  subway  crossing  and  approaches. 

And  it  is  further  ordered  that  this  cause  stand  continued  until  the  next 
regular  meeting  of  this  board. 

Filed  August  10,  1907. 

(Signed)    W.  H.  BOYS,  Chairman. 


BEFOBE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 
Peoria,  Lincoln  &  Springfield  Traction  Co., 

V9. 

Cleveland,  Cincinnati,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis  Railway  Company, 
and  Peoria  &  Eastern  Railway  Company. 

Supplemental  Order. 

On  the  10th  day  of  August,  1907,  an  order  was  entered  in  this  cause  author- 
izing the  petitioner  to  cross  with  its  proposed  line  of  railway  by  means  of  a 
subway,  the  railway  of  the  respondent  companies,  at  the  point  mentioned  in 
the  petition  filed  herein,  and  it  was  ordered  that  the  petitioner  file  with  the 
secretary  of  this  commission  full  and  complete  estimates  and  specifications  of 
the  cost,  manner  of  crossing  and  of  the  structures  to  be  used  in  constructing 
the  said  subway  crossing  and  approaches. 

Such  estimates  and  specifications  have  been  filed  with  the  secretary  as 
provided  in  said  order,  and  have  been  examined  by  the  commission,  and  the 
specifications  showing  the  manner  of  crossing,  and  the  structures  to  be  used 
in  constructing  said  subway  and  approaches  are  hereby  approved. 

It  further  appearing  that  the  parties  interested  in  said  crossing  have  agreed 
upon  the  division  of  expense  of  constructing  said  subway,  no  order  or  decision 
of  the  commission  is  necessary  in  regard  thereto. 

Dated  this  3d  day  of  December,  A.  D.  1907. 

W.  H.  BOYS,  Chairman. 

B.  A.  ECKHART,   Commissioner. 

J.   A.   WILLOUGHBY,    Commissioner. 


Peoria,  Lincoln  &  Springfield  Traction  Co., 

vs. 
Vandalia  Railroad  Co. 

Petition  to  Fix  Place  and  Manner  of  Crossing  Near  Mackinaw,  III. 

Petition  filed  June  28,  1907. 

July  10,  1907,  place  of  proposed  crossing  viewed  by  commission. 


148 

August  6,  1907,  case  heard  by  the  commission. 

August  12,  1907,  order  of  the  commission  entered  of  record  as  follows: 

BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 

At  the  August  meeting,  A.  D.  1907. 

Present:  Hon.  Wm.  H.  Boys,  Chairman;  Hon.  J.  A.  Willoughby,  Hon.  B.  A. 
Eckhart,  Commissioners. 

In  ttie  matter  of  Peoria,  Lincoln  &  Springfield  Traction  Co. 

vs. 
Vandalia  Railroad  Co. 

Petition  for  Crossing. 

Now,  on  this  day  said  cause  coming  on  for  hearing  before  said  Board  of 
Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commissioners;  the  petitioner  appearing  by  H.  J. 
Hamlin  and  George  B.  Gillespie,  its  attorneys;  respondent  appearing  by  W. 
C.  Outten,  its  attorney,  and  said  commissioners  having  heretofore  viewed 
the  place  for  proposed  crossing  and  having  heard  the  evidence  submitted 
by  the  petitioner  and  respondent,  it  is  considered  and  ordered  that  the 
petitioner,  Peoria,  Lincoln  &  Springfield  Traction  Company,  may,  with  its 
proposed  line  of  railway,  cross  under  the  railway  of  the  Vandalia  Railroad 
Company  at  the  point  described  in  the  petition  filed  herein,  to-wit:  On 
section  18,  township  23,  range  2  W.  of  the  3d  P.  M.,  in  the  county  of  Taze- 
well,  State  of  Illinois,  as  the  said  line  of  the  petitioner  is  located,  which  loca- 
tion line  is  indicated  by  engineer's  marks,  stakes  and  monuments  along  the 
location  line  of  its  proposed  railway. 

It  is  further  ordered  that  there  shall  be  a  clearance  of  sixteen  feet  between 
the  top  of  the  rails  of  petitioner's  road  and  a  roof  or  support,  which  shall 
be  constructed  over  the  same  to  support  the  railway  of  the  Vandalia  Rail- 
road Company  and  that  the  subway  under  said  railway  through  which  the 
railway  of  the  petitioner  is  to  pass  shall  be  of  the  width  of  eighteen  feet. 

It  is  further  ordered  that  if  the  Vandalia  Railroad  Company  shall  here- 
after construct  an  additional  spur  or  track  to  its  gravel  pits  as  indicated 
by  the  plat  filed  herein,  that  the  petitioner  shall  permit  the  construction  of 
such  temporary  wooden  trestle  overhead  crossing,  as  shall  be  deemed  neces- 
sary. This  order,  however,  does  not  determine  the  question  as  to  whether 
the  cost  of  constructing  such  trestle  work  overhead  shall  be  borne  by  the 
petitioner  or  by  the  Vandalia  Railroad  Com;pany,  but  that  question  is  left 
open  for  the  future  determination  of  this  board. 

It  is  further  ordered  that  the  petitioner  at  or  before  the  next  meeting  of 
this  board  shall  file  with  its  secretary  full  and  complete  estimates  and 
specifications  of  the  cost,  manner  of  crossing  and  of  the  structure  to  be  used 
in  constructing  said  subway  crossing  and  approaches. 

It  is  further  ordered  that  this  cause  stand  continued  until  the  next  regular 
meeting  of  this  board. 

(Signed)     W.  H.  BOYS,  Chairman. 

Dated  at  Springfield,  111.,  August  12,  1907. 


BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 

Peoria,  Lincoln  &  Springfield  Traction  Co., 

w. 
Vandalia  Railroad  Co. 

On  the  12th  day  of  August,  1907,  an  order  was  entered  in  this  cause  author- 
izing the  petitioner  to  cross  with  its  proposed  line  of  railway,  by  means  of  a 
subway,  under  the  railway  of  the  respondent  company,  at  a  point  on  section 
eighteen  (18),  township  twenty-three  (23),  range  two  (2)  west  of  the  third 


149 

principal  meridian,  in  the  county  of  fazewell  in  the  State  of  Illinois.  By 
this  order  the  petitioner  was  required  to  file  with  the  secretary  of  the  com- 
mission full  and  complete  estimates  and  specifications  of  the  cost,  manner  of 
crossing  and  of  the  structures  to  be  used  in  constructing  said  subway  cross- 
ings and  approaches. 

Such  plans  and  specifications  have  been  filed  with  the  secretary  and  exam- 
ined by  the  commission  and  they  are  hereby  approved.  The  only  question 
to  be  determined  at  this  time  is  whether  or  not  the  respondent  company 
shall  be  required  to  pay  any  part  of  the  cost  of  separating  the  grades  at 
this  point,  and  if  so  the  proportion  it  shall  be  required  to  bear. 

Section  2  of  an  Act  entitled,  "An  Act  in  relation  to  the  crossing  of  one 
railroad  by  another  and  to  prevent  danger  to  life  and  property  from  grade 
crossings,"  as  amended  and  in  force  July  1,  1907,  provides,  in  part,  as  follows: 

"If  a  separation  of  grades  is  required  at  sueh  crossing,  then  such  com- 
mission shall  decide  and  include  in  the  order  authorizing  such  crossing  the 
proportion  of  the  expense  thereof  to  be  paid  by  the  railroads  interested  in 
said  crossing  respectively  but  not  more  than  one-third  of  such  expense  shall 
be  charged  against  the  senior  road.  Interurban  electric  railroads  and  street 
railroads  are  hereby  declared  to  be  railroads  and  within  the  meaning  of  this 
Act." 

We  have  carefully  considered  the  suggestions  of  counsel  concerning  the 
division  of  expense  of  separating  the  grades  at  this  point,  and  have  arrived 
at  the  conclusion  that  in  all  ordinary  cases  it  is  only  fair  and  equitable  that 
the  senior  road  should  bear  one-third  of  such  expense. 

It  is  therefore  ordered  and  decided  that  the  expense  of  the  separation  of 
grades  at  the  proposed  crossing  shall  be  borne  and  paid  by  the  railroads 
interested  in  the  following  proportions,  to-wit: 

The  petitioner  shall  pay  two-thirds  of  the  expense  of  separating  said  grades 
and  the  respondent  shall  pay  one-third  of  such  expense. 

In  the  former  order  in  this  cause,  it  was  provided  that  if  the  respondent 
company  should  hereafter  construct  an  additional  spur  track  to  its  gravel 
pits,  as  indicated  by  the  plat  filed  in  said  cause,  that  the  petitioner  should 
permit  the  construction  of  such  temporary  wooden  trestle  overhead  crossing 
as  should  be  deemed  necessary,  but  whether  the  cost  of  constructing  such 
trestle  work  should  be  borne  by  the  petitioner  or  by  the  respondent  was 
reserved  for  the  future  determination  of  the  board. 

The  respondent  has  not  indicated  to  the  commission  that  it  will  be  neces- 
sary, or  that  it  intends  to  construct  said  overhead  trestle,  and  consequently, 
it  is. not  now  necessary  to  decide  that  question,  but  if  at  any  time  in  the 
future  the  respondent  road  decides  to  construct  said  overhead  trestle  work  it 
shall  have  the  right  to  apply  to  the  commission  to  determine  whether  or  not 
the  expense  thereof  shall  be  borne  by  the  petitioner  or  by  the  respondent,  or 
if  by  both,  the  proportion  to  be  borne  by  each. 

Dated  this  20th  day  of  November,  A.  D.  1907. 

(Signed)    W.  H.  BOYS,  Chairman. 

B.  A.  ECKHABT,   Commissioner. 
J.   A.   WILLOUGHBY,    Commissioner. 


Michael  C.  Hayes, 

vs. 
Chicago  &  Northwestern  Ry.  Co. 

Complaint  of  Extortion  and  Unjust  Discrimination  in  the  Charges  for 
Switching  in  Chicago. 

Petition  filed  July  11,  1907. 

August  8th,  1907,  case  heard  before  the  commission  and  continued  to 
September  5,  1907. 

September  5,  1907,  case  continued  to  October  19,  1907. 

October  19,  1907,  case  concluded  before  the  commission  and  taken  under 
advisement. 


Galesville  Grain  and  Coal  Co. 

vs. 
The  Wabash  Railroad  Company. 

Discrimination  in  the  Distribution  of  Cars  for  Loading  Grain. 

Petition  filed  July  12,  1907. 

August  6,  1907,  case  heard  before  the  commission. 

December  3,  1907,  opinion  and  findings  of  the  commission  filed  of  record 
as  follows: 

BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 

Galesville  Grain  and  Coal  Company, 

vs. 
Wabash  Railroad  Company. 

APPEARANCES : 

MR.  F.  M.  SHONKWILEB  AND  MR.  JAMES  HICKS,  for  petitioner. 
MB.  N.  S.  BROWN,  for  Respondent. 

Discrimination  in  Distribution  of  Cars. 

It  is  alleged  in  the  complaint  filed  in  this  cause,  that  the  petitioner  is  a 
corporation  engaged  in  buying  and  shipping  grain  at  the  unincorporated 
town  of  Galesville,  in  the  county  of  Piatt;  that  for  more  than  a  year  last 
past  there  have  been  three  grain  elevators  in  use  at  said  town  of  Galesville, 
all  of  which  are  located  upon  the  right  of  way  of  respondent,  the  Wabash 
Railroad  Company;  that  complainant  owns  and  operates  an  elevator  of  about 
40,000  bushels  capacity,  and  that  Patrick  H.  Hayes  and  John  Hayes  have 
leased,  and  since  the  first  of  January,  1907,  have  operated  the  other  two 
elevators  located  at  Galesville,  one  of  them  having  a  capacity  of  about  5,000 
bushels  and  the  other  having  a  capacity  of  from  10,000  to  12,000  bushels; 
that  Patrick  H.  Hayes  and  John  Hayes  are  doing  business  under  the  firm 
name  and  style  of  Hayes  Brothers,  and  that  they  are  in  truth  and  in  fact  a 
single  firm;  that  in  the  distribution  of  grain  cars  among  the  dealers  along 
the  line  of  its  road  the  respondent  has  adopted  a  rule  requiring  their  agents 
to  distribute  the  cars  equally  between  the  different  firms  at  each  station, 
regardless  of  the  number  of  elevators  operated  by  each  firm,  or  the  capacity 
of  the  same;  that  in  the  distribution  of  grain  cars  the  agent  of  the  respond- 
ent at  Galesville  persists  in  treating  the  firm  of  Hayes  Brothers  as  two 
separate  and  distinct  firms,  and  consequently  gives  to  them  twice  as  many 
cars  as  are  given  to  complainant,  and  that  in  thus  dividing  the  grain  cars 
available  for  the  shipment  of  grain  from  said  station  the  respondent  has 
unlawfully  discriminated  against  the  complainant. 

The  evidence  in  the  case  shows  beyond  a  shadow  of  a  doubt  that  Patrick 
H.  Hayes  and  John  Hayes  prior  to  the  hearing,  were  doing  business  under 
the  firm  name  and  style  of  Hayes  Brothers;  that  one  of  the  partners  kept 
the  books  of  the  concern  and  attended  to  the  weighing  of  grain,  while  the 
other  attended  to  the  outside  work;  that  all  grain  was  paid  for  by  checks 
signed  by  Hayes  Brothers  and  drawn  on  the  First  National  Bank  of  Monti- 
cello,  Illinois,  where  an  account  was  kept  in  the  name  of  Hayes  Brothers; 
that  no  effort  was  made  by  the  members  of  the  firm  to  conceal  from  any  of 
their  customers  the  fact  that  they  were,  prior  to  the  hearing  in  this  case, 
doing  business  as  a  single  firm,  under  the  name  of  Hayes  Brothers. 

It  is  also  disclosed  by  the  evidence  that  in  their  dealings  with  the  agent 
of  the  respondent  at  Galesville,  each  of  the  brothers  placed  orders  for  cars 
in  their  individual  names,  and  that  all  shipments  made  over  the  respondent's 
road  were  in  the  name  of  one  or  the  other  of  the  brothers,  and  that  they 
represented  to  such  agent  that  each  of  them  was  doing  business  on  his  in- 


dividual  account,  and  consequently  claimed  that  each  of  them  was  entitled 
to  his  pro  rata  share  of  the  grain  cars  available  for  shipping  grain  from  said 
station. 

The  agent  of  the  defendant  at  Galesville  testified  that  both  Patrick  H. 
Hayes  and  John  Hayes  had  represented  to  him  that  they  were  not  doing 
business  as  a  firm,  but  that  each  of  them  was  doing  business  on  his  individ- 
ual account  and  that  consequently,  he  had  in  accordance  with  the  rules  of 
the  respondent  regulating  the  distribution  of  grain  cars,  given  to  Patrick 
H.  Hayes  one-third  of  all  grain  cars  received,  to  John  Hayes  one-third  of 
such  cars  and  to  the  complainant  one-third  of  such  cars. 

We  are  impressed  with  the  idea  that  if  the  agent  of  the  respondent  was 
deceived  by  these  misrepresentations  of  Hayes  Brothers,  he  was  the  only 
person,  so  far  as  the  evidence  discloses,  who  was  misled  by  their  statements, 
and  we  are  inclined  to  the  belief  that  the  agent  of  the  respondent  wilfully 
discriminated  against  the  complainant  inHhe  distribution  of  cars,  because  we 
are  unable  to  find  from  the  evidence  offered  at  the  hearing  that  there  was  or 
is  the  slightest  excuse  for  the  agent  not  knowing  the  exact  condition  of 
affairs. 

After  the  filing  of  the  complaint  in  this  cause  the  Hayes  Brothers  went 
through  the  outward  form  of  dissolving  the  partnership  theretofore  existing, 
but  the  evidence  as  to  the  bona  fides  of  this  pretended  dissolution  was  such 
as  to  leave  clearly  upon  our  minds  the  impression  that  it  was  a  dissolution 
in  form  only  and  not  in  fact. 

It  is  contended  by  counsel  for  respondent  that  this  commission  has  no  jur- 
isdiction over  the  subject  matter  of  this  complaint,  and  that  the  same  ought 
to  be  dismissed.  It  is  not  necessary  in  this  case  to  decide  whether  or  not  the 
commission  has  power  to  prescribe  a  rule  for  the  distribution  of  cars  and 
compel  the  observance  of  that  rule  by  the  railroad  companies,  and  in  this 
case  we  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  either  approving  or  disapproving 
of  the  rule  adopted  by  the  respondent.  For  the  purpose  of  this  case  we  as- 
sume that  the  rule  which  it  has  adopted  is  a  reasonable  and  fair  one.  We 
think  that  it  is  within  the  power  of  this  commission  to  inquire  into  com- 
plaints charging  a  discrimination,  either  in  rates  or  the  distribution  of  cars, 
or  any  other  matters  where  the  rights  and  interests  of  shippers  are  involved. 
As  we  have  above  said,  for  the  purposes  of  this  case  we  assume  that  the  rule 
adopted  by  the  respondent  company  is  a  just  and  fair  one,  but  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  company  to  carry  out  that  rule  in  good  faith  and  to  treat  all  of  its 
patrons  justly  and  fairly  where  they  are  doing  business  under  the  same 
conditions. 

It  was  shown  upon  the  hearing  of  this  cause  that  from  January  to  July, 
1907,  both  inclusive,  the  respondent  furnished  to  the  complainant  a  total  of 
eighty-three  (83)  cars;  that  it  furnished  during  the  same  period  to  Patrick 
H.  Hayes  thirty  (30)  cars  and  to  John  Hayes  nineteen  (19)  cars,  making  a 
total  of  forty-nine  (49)  cars  furnished  to  Hayes  Brothers,  and  it  is  claimed, 
that  even  though  the  commission  has  jurisdiction  of  the  subject  matter,  the 
evidence  utterly  fails  to  show  any  discrimination  against  the  complainant. 

It  was  also  shown  at  the  hearing  that  the  complainant  did  a  larger  business 
than  the  Hayes  Brothers  and  that  during  the  period  named  took  all  of  the 
cars  it  could  obtain  from  the  agent  of  the  respondent;  that  during  such 
period,  or  a  portion  thereof,  Patrick  H.  Hayes  did  not  order  any  cars  at  all, 
and  the  same  is  true  of  John  Hayes.  The  mere  fact  that  during  the  seven 
months  from  January  to  July,  inclusive,  the  complainant  was  furnished  a 
larger  number  of  cars  th.an  was  furnished  to  Patrick  H.  Hayes  and  John 
Hayes  jointly,  does  not,  under  the  circumstances  disclosed,  show  that  the  com- 
plainant was  not. discriminated  against.  The  testimony  of  the  agent  of  the  re- 
spondent was  that  when  the  three  parties  named  wanted  cars  at  the  same 
time  the  cars  were  distributed  equally  between  them,  and  in  this  distribution 
of  cars  we  think  the  complainant  was  treated  unfairly. 

It  will  not  do  to  say  unqualifiedly  that  the  agent  of  the  respondent  at 
Galesville  had  a  right  to  assume  that  the  statements  of  Patrick  H.  Hayes 
and  John  Hayes  to  him  were  true.  It  may  be  that  he  was  justified  in  assum- 
ing their  statements  to  be  correct  until  he  was  made  aware  that  they  were 


contrary  to  the  facts.  Complaints  were  repeatedly  made  to  he  agent  on 
account  of  his  method  of  distributing  cars,  and  he  was  repeatedly  told  that 
Patrick  H.  Hayes  and  John  Hayes  constituted  a  single  firm.  The  outward 
evidences  of  the  truth  of  this  statement  were  so  apparent  that  only  the  gross- 
est negligence  or  unfairness  on  the  part  of  the  agent  could  leave  him  in  ig- 
norance of  the  real  facts. 

It  is  our  opinion  that  the  complainant  fully  and  clearly  established  the 
charges  made  in  its  complant  and  that  the  respondent  has  been  guilty  of 
wilful  discrimination  against  the  complainant  in  the  distribution  of  grain 
cars. 

Dated  this  3rd  day  of  December,  A.  D.  1907. 

W.  H.  BOYS,  Chairman. 

B.   A.   ECKHABT,   Commissioner. 

J.    A.    WILLOUGHBY,    Commissioner. 


Village  of  Mt.  Olive,  111. 

vs. 
Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. 

Complaint  of  Excessive  Charge  for  Switching. 

Petition  filed  July  20,  1907. 
August  6,  1907,  case  heard  before  commission. 

October  17,  1907,  opinion  and  findings  of  the  commission  filed  of  record 
as  follows: 

BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 

Village  of  Mt.  Olive. 

vis. 
Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company. 

Overcharge  for  Switching. 

APPEARANCES : 

COLLIE  CLAVIN,  for  Petitioner. 
JOHN  G.  DRENNAN,  for  Respondent. 

The  facts  in  this  case  are  not  disputed  and  are  as  follows:  The  village  of 
Mt.  Olive  operates  an  electric  light  plant  located  adjacent  to  a  switch  track 
of  the  respondent  at  Mt.  Olive.  Some  time  prior  to  August  1,  1907,  the  vil- 
lage of  Mt.  Olive  ordered  a  carload  of  coal  from  the  Consolidated  Coal  Com- 
pany whose  mine  is  located  on  the  line  of  the  Wabash  Railroad  Company. 
The  coal  was  loaded  in  a  Wabash  car  and  delivered  by  the  Wabash  Railroad 
Company  to  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company  at  its  junction  with  the 
latter  road  in  Mt.  Olive.  The  distance  from  the  junction  of  the  two  roads 
to  the  electric  light  plant  of  the  petitioner  is  3,360  feet.  In  the  regular  course 
of  business  the  car  was  taken  from  the  junction  by  the  Illinois  Central  Rail- 
road Company  and  delivered  to  the  petitioner  on  a  sidetrack  adjacent  to  pe- 
titioner's plant.  For  this  service  the  respondent  charged  and  collected  the 
sum  of  $11.04,  being  23  cents  per  ton  for  48  tons. 

The  petitioner  claims  that  this  service  was  a  switching  service  and  gov- 
erned by  Rule  23  Illinois  Commissioners'  Classification  No.  10,  and  there- 
fore the  respondent  was  and  is  guilty  of  extortion  in  charging  and  col- 
lecting a  sum  largely  in  excess  of  the  maximum  charge  fixed  or  allowed  by 
such  rule. 

We  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  service  performed  by  the  respondent  was  a 
switching  service  and  clearly  within  Rule  23  above  referred  to,  and  that  in 


153 

charging  more  than  $4.00  for  the  services  in  question,  the  respondent  was  and 
is  guilty  of  extortion. 

Dated  at  Springfield,  Illinois,  this  J7th  day  of  October,  A.  D.  1907. 

W.  H.  BOYS,  Chairman. 

B.   A.  ECKHABT,   Commissioner. 

J.   A.   WILLOTJGHBY,    Commissioner. 


Kensington  and  Eastern  Railroad  Company, 

vs. 

Pittsburg,  Ft.  Wayne  and  Chicago  Ry.  Co. 
Chicago  and  State  Line  Ry.  Co. 
The  New  York,  Chicago  and  St.  Louis  R.  R.  Co. 
South  Chicago  and  Southern  R.  R.  Co. 
Pennsylvania  Company. 
Chicago  and  Western  Indiana  R.  R.Co. 
Chicago  and  Erie  R.  R.  Co. 
Erie  R.  R.  Co. 

Chicago,  Indianapolis  &  Louisville  R.  R.  Co. 
The  Wabash  R.  R.  Co.  and 
Elgin,  Joliet  and  Eastern  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  for  Grade  Crossing  at  Burnham,  Illinois. 

Petition  filed  July  23,  1907. 

August  27,  1907,  commission  viewed  place  of  proposed  crossing. 

Sept.  5  and  6,  1907,  case  heard  before  the  commission. 

Oct.  30,  1907,  order  of  the  commission  filed  of  record  as  follows: 

BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 

Kensington  &  Eastern  Railroad  Company, 

vs. 

Pittsburg,  Ft.  Wayne  &  Chicago  Ry., 
Chicago  &  State  Line  Ry.  Co., 
The  New  York,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis  R.  R.  Co., 
South  Chicago  &  Southern  R.  R.  Co., 
Pennsylvania  Company, 
Chicago  &  Western  Indiana  R.  R.  Co., 
Chicago  &  Erie  R.  R.  Co., 
Erie  R.  R.  Co., 

Chicago,  Indianapolis  &  Louisville  R.  R.  Co., 
The  Wabash  Railroad  Company  and 
Elgin,  Joliet  and  Eastern  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  to  Croats  at  Grade. 

APPEARANCES: 

JOHN  G.  DRENNAN,  for  Petitioner. 

WM.  J.  HENLEY,  WELLS  H.  BLODGETT, 

GEO.  W.  KRETZINGER,  ROBERT  J.  GARY, 

W.  O.  JOHNSON,  LOESCH,  SCOFIELD  &  LOESCH,  for  Respondent. 

The  amended  petition  in  this  case  was  filed  August  6,  1907,  by  the  Ken- 
sington and  Eastern  Railroad  Company  against  the  Pittsburg,  Ft.  Wayne  & 
Chicago  Railway  Company,  Chicago  &  State  Line  Railway  Company,  The 
New  York,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis  Railroad  Company,  South  Chicago  &  Southern 
Railroad  Company,  Pennsylvania  Company,  Chicago  &  Western  Indiana 
Railroad  Company,  Chicago  &  Erie  Railroad  Company,  Erie  Railroad  Com- 
pany, Chicago,  Indianapolis  and  Louisville  Railroad  Company,  the  Wabash 


154 

Railroad  Company  and  the  Elgin,  Joliet  and  Eastern  Railway  Company. 
Answers  were  filed  by  the  several  respondents  prior  to  the  5th  day  of  Sep- 
tember, 1907,  at  which  time  the  cause  was  heard  by  the  commission,  the 
place  of  the  proposed  crossing  having  been  viewed  by  the  commission  on 
August  28,  1907. 

The  Kensington  and  Eastern  Railroad  Company  is  a  corporation  duly  or- 
ganized under  the  general  laws  of  the  State  of  Illinois  relating  to  the  incor- 
poration of  railroads,  and  has  laid  out  and  located  its  road  from  Kensington, 
Cook  county,  Illinois,  a  station  on  the  line  of  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad 
Company,  in  a  southeasterly  direction  to  the  Indiana  state  line,  near  the  city 
of  Hammond,  Indiana.  At  or  near  Burnham,  Illinois,  the  proposed  railroad 
of  petitioner,  as  the  same  is  laid  out  will  cross  the  main  line  of  the  Chicago 
and  Western  Indiana  R.  R.  Co.,  the  main  line  of  the  New  York,  Chicago  and 
St.  Louis  R.  R.  Co.,  and  the  main  line  of  the  South  Chicago  and  Southern  R. 
R.  Co.  At  the  point  of  proposed  crossing  the  Chicago  &  Western  Indiana  R. 
R.  Co.  owns  and  operates  a  double  track  railroad  running  in  a  northwesterly 
and  southeasterly  direction,  and  the  New  York,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis  R.  R. 
Co.  owns  and  operates  a  double  track  railroad,  which  parallels  the  Chicago 
&  Western  Indiana  Company's  tracks.  At  this  point  the  four  main  tracks 
last  above  mentioned  are  crossed  by  the  single  track  main  line  of  the  South 
Chicago  and  Southern  Railroad  Company,  running  in  a  northerly  and  south- 
erly direction,  which  crossing  is  now  protected  by  an  interlocker. 

The  petitioner  proposes  to  cross  the  main  tracks  of  these  railroads,  with  a 
double  track  main  line,  at  grade,  at  the  point  where  the  three  roads  named, 
intersect. 

All  of  the  other  respondents,  (except  the  Pittsburg,  Ft.  Wayne  and  Chicago 
Railway  Company,  which  disclaims  any  interest  in  any  of  the  tracks  to  be 
crossed),  are  either  tenants  of  or  are  otherwise  interested  in  some  one  of  the 
three  repsondents  above  mentioned. 

It  is  insisted  by  the  respondents,  that  to  permit  a  grade  crossing  at  the 
point  selected  by  the  petitioner  will  "unnecessarily  impede  or  endanger  the 
travel  or  transportation  upon"  the  railways  so  to  be  crossed,  and  therefore, 
if  a  crossing  is  permitted  at  that  point,  or  at  any  other  point  designated  by 
the  commission,  that  the  petitioner  should  be  required  to  construct  an  over- 
head crossing. 

The  evidence  submitted  at  the  hearing  shows  that  one  of  the  two  tracks 
which  the  petitioner  proposes  to  construct,  is  to  be  used  by  the  Chicago,  Lake 
Shore  and  South  Bend  Railway  Company,  an  electric  line  that  is  to  be  oper- 
ated between  South  Bend,  Indiana,  and  Chicago.  The  other  track  is  to  be 
used  by  the  petitioner  and  also  by  the  C.  C.  &  L.  R.  R.  Co.,  and  operated 
as  a  steam  railroad. 

It  further  appears  from  the  evidence  that  from  July  7,  1907,  to  July  15, 
1907,  both  inclusive,  the  petitioner  took  observations  of  the  number  of  trains 
that  actually  passed  over  the  place  of  the  proposed  crossing  each  24  hours,  the 
average  number  per  day  being  151.  The  petitioner  also  estimates  that  when 
its  road  is,  completed  and  in  operation,  it  and  its  tenants  will  operate  an 
average  of  51  trains  over  the  crossing,  making  a  total  of  202  train  movements 
over  the  proposed  crossing  each  day. 

The  first  question  to  be  determined  is  whether  or  not  the  petitioner  should 
be  permitted  to  construct  a  grade  crossing  at  the  point  selected  by  it. 

We  have  had  occasion  in  a  number  of  cases  recently  decided  to  express 
our  views  on  the  subject  of  grade  crossings  and  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  here 
repeat  what  we  have  heretofore  said  on  this  subject.  All  are  agreed  that 
there  is  an  element  of  danger  in  grade  crossings  which  it  is  impossible  to 
entirely  overcome. 

From  the  evidence  it  appears  that  no  less  than  five  or  six  trunk  lines 
enter  the  city  of  Chicago  over  the  tracks  of  the  Chicago  &  Western  Indiana 
Company.  A  very  large  number  of  passenger  trains  are  operated  by  these 
trunk  lines.  Of  the  51  trains,  (including  electric  cars  or  trains),  which  the 
petitioner  proposes  to  operate  over  this  crossing,  43  will  carry  passengers. 

With  these  facts  before  us  we  have  no  hesitancy  in  saying  that  the  peti- 
tioner's request  for  a  grade  crossing  should  be  denied. 


155 

The  next  question  to  be  determined  is  whether  or  not  the  petitioner  should 
be  permitted  to  construct  an  overhead  crossing  at  the  point  selected  by  it. 
As  before  stated,  the  South  Chicago  road  now  crosses  the  Western  Indiana 
and  Nickle  Plate  roads  at  this  point,  and  if  the  petitioner  is  allowed  to  con- 
struct an  overhead  crossing  over  the  three  roads  named,  it  will  be  next  to 
impossible  to  separate  the  grades  of  the  South  Chicago  road  and  the  Western 
Indiana  and  Nickel  Plate  roads  at  any  time  in  the  future. 

It  was  suggested  by  several  of  the  engineers  who  were  examined  as  wit- 
nesses, that  the  difficulties  involved  would  be  obviated  by  requiring  the  peti- 
tioner to  cross  by  an  overhead  crossing,  the  tracks  of  the  Chicago  &  Western 
Indiana  Company  and  the  New  York,  Chicago  and  St.  Louis  Company, 
at  a  point  6,400  feet  northwest  of  the  point  selected  by  it,  and  to  cross  the 
single  track  main  line  of  the  South  Chicago  and  Southern  Railroad  Company 
at  grade,  at  or  near  the  point  where  this  track  is  now  crossed  at  grade  by 
the  Chicago  &  Western  Indiana  and  New  York,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis 
Companies. 

It  seems  to  us  that  this  arrangement  has  a  number  of  advantages  over  any 
other  plan  that  has  been  suggested. 

In  the  first  place,  the  trains  operated  by  the  South  Chicago  and  Southern 
are  comparatively  few  in  number,  averaging  but  16  per  day,  and  conse- 
quently the  same  objection  does  not  exist  to  crossing  this  road  at  grade  that 
does  to  crossing  the  Chicago  &  Western  Indiana  and  the  New  York,  Chicago 
and  St.  Louis.  Again,  the  present  grade  crossing  is  protected  by  an  inter- 
locker  and  such  interlocking  plant,  could,  with  very  little  expense,  be  ex- 
tended so  as  to  include  the  crossing  of  petitioner's  tracks.  This  arrangement 
would  make  it  entirely  practicable  and  feasible,  should  the  increase  of  traffic 
on  the  several  lines  require  it,  to  separate  the  grade  of  the  track  of  the 
South  Chicago  and  Southern  from,  the  grade  of  the  tracks  of  the  Chicago  & 
Western  Indiana,  the  New  York,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis  and  the  Kensington  & 
Eastern. 

The  most  serious  objection  to  this  plan  of  crossing,  is  the  increased  expense 
to  the  Kensington  and  Eastern,  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  the  right  of  way 
along  the  north  side  of  the  Western  Indiana  and  Nickel  Plate  tracks  from 
the  point  6,400  feet  northwest  of  Burnham  to  the  South  Chicago  and  Southern 
crossing  would  probably  cost  more  money  than  a  right  of  way  along  the 
south  side  of  those  tracks  between  the  points  named. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  expense  of  this  crossing  to  the  Kensington  & 
Eastern  Company  will  be  very  large,  but  whether  or  not  the  expense  of  con- 
structing the  crossing  in  the  manner  above  indicated,  would  exceed  the  ex- 
pense of  an  overhead  crossing  at  the  point  selected  by  the  petitioner,  we  are 
unable  to  determine  from  the  estimates  of  the  engineers,  offered  in  evidence. 
At  any  rate,  all  of  the  circumstances  considered,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that 
the  plan  last  suggested  is  the  proper  one,  and  should  be  adopted 

One  additional  question  remains  to  be  determined.  Section  2,  of  an  Act 
entitled,  "An  Act  in  relation  to  the  crossing  of  one  railway  by  another,  and 
to  prevent  danger  to  life  and  property  from  grade  crossings,"  is,  in  part,  as 
follows: 

"If  a  separation  of  grades  is  required  at  such  crossing,  then  such  com- 
mission shall  decide  and  include  in  the  order  authorizing  such  crossing,  the 
proportion  of  the  expense  thereof  to  be  paid  by  the  railroads  interested  in 
said  crossing,  respectively,  but  not  more  than  one-third  of  such  expense 
shall  be  charged  against  the  senior  road." 

The  question  is,  what  proportion  of  the  expense  of  separating  the  grade 
of  petitioners'  tracks  from  the  grade  of  the  tracks  of  the  Chicago  &  Western 
Indiana  and  the  New  York,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis  Companies  should  equitably 
be  borne  by  the  two  last  named  roads? 

There  can  be  no  question  as  to  the  right  of  petitioner  to  cross  with  its 
tracks,  the  tracks  of  the  Chicago  &  Western  Indiana  and  New  York,  Chicago 
&  St.  Louis  Companies.  The  statute  under  which  it  was  organized  expressly 
confers  upon  it  this  right.  The  benefits  that  will  accrue  to  the  senior  roads, 
by  reason  of  this  crossing  being  made  by  an  overhead  structure  rather  than 
at  grade,  are  many,  and  must  be  apparent  to  everyone.  There  will  be  no 


156 

possibility  of  a  collision  between  trains  of  the  different  companies,  and  there- 
fore the  liability  to  damages  on  account  of  injuries  to  persons  and  property 
is  obviated.  None  of  the  troublesome  delays  incident  to  a  grade  crossing 
will  be  encountered,  and  the  continuing  expense  of  the  operation  of  an  inter- 
locking plant,  a  portion  of  which  the  senior  road  is  usually  required  to  pay, 
will  be  avoided. 

All  things  considered,  we  are  inclined  to  agree  with  the  suggestion  of 
counsel  for  petitioner,  that  the  senior  roads  should  be  required  to  pay  one- 
third  of  the  expense  of  separating  the  grades  in  question. 

It  is  therefore  ordered  and  decided  that  the  petitioner,  the  Kensington 
and  Eastern  Railroad  Company  be,  and  it  is  hereby  authorized  to  cross  with 
its  tracks  the  main  tracks  of  the  Chicago  and  Western  Indiana  Railroad  Com- 
pny  and  the  main  tracks  of  the  New  York,  Chicago  and  St.  Louis  Railroad 
Company  (the  right  of  way  for  such  crossing  being  first  obtained  in  the 
manner  required  by  law)  at  a  point  about  6,400  feet  northwest  of  the  proposed 
point  of  crossing  as  described  in  the  petition  filed  herein;  that  such  crossing 
shall  be  made  by  a  substantial  overhead  structure,  the  lowest  part  of  which 
shall  be  twenty-two  (22)  feet  above  the  top  of  the  rails  of  the  Chicago  and 
Western  Indiana  Railroad  and  the  New  York,  Chicago  and  St.  Louis  Railroad, 
and  that  the  expense  of  separating  the  grades  at  said  crossing  shall  be  paid 
by  the  railroads  interested,  in  the  following  proportions:  Two-thirds  of 
such  expense  shall  be  paid  by  the  petitioner,  the  Kensington  and  Eastern 
Railroad  Company,  and  one-third  of  such  expense  shall  be  paid  by  the  Chicago 
and  Western  Indiana  Railroad  Company  and  the  New  York,  Chicago  and 
St.  Louis  Railroad  Company. 

It  is  further  ordered  and  decided  that  the  petitioner,  the  Kensington  and 
Eastern  Railroad  Company  be  and  it  is  hereby  authorized  to  cross  with  its 
tracks  the  main  track  of  the  South  Chicago  and  Southern  Railroad  Company 
at  grade,  at  a  point  immediately  north  and  west  of  the  point  where  such 
track  is  now  crossed  by  the  tracks  of  the  Chicago  and  Western  Indiana  Rail- 
road Company  at  Burnham,  Cook  county,  Illinois,  the  right  of  way  for  such 
crossing  being  first  obtained  as  provided  by  law;  that  such  crossing  be  con- 
structed at  the  sole  expense  of  the  petitioner  and  be  protected  by  a  proper 
and  adequate  interlocking  device  to  be  installed  and  maintained  at  the 
•expense  of  the  Kensington  and  Eastern  Railroad  Company.  Permission  is 
granted  the  parties  in  interest  to  enlarge  and  extend  the  present  interlocking 
plant  located  at  said  crossing  so  as  to  include  the  tracks  of  the  petitioner, 
should  they  so  desire,  in  which  event  the  petitioner  is  directed  to  prepare 
and  present  to  this  commission  without  unnecessary  delay,  complete  and 
detailed  plans  and  specifications  of  the  additions  to  such  interlocking  plant, 
for  the  approval  of  this  commission,  and  in  case  the  parties  fail  to  agree 
upon  a  division  of  the  expense  of  operating  such  interlocking  plant  at  said 
crossing  such  question  will  be  determined  by  the  commission  upon  the 
presentation  of  such  plans  and  specifications  for  approval.  This  cause  will 
be  taken  under  advisement  and  a  final  order  entered,  upon  presentation  of 
plans  and  specifications  for  such  interlocking  plant  and  the  approval  of  the 
same. 

Dated  this  30th  day  of  October,  A.  D.  1907. 

(Signed)    W.  H.  BOYS,  Chairman. 

B.  A.  ECKHABT,   Commissioner. 
J.   A.   WILLOUOHBY,    Commissioner. 


Applegate  &  Lewis  Coal  Company, 

vs. 
Chicago,   Burlington   &  Quincy  Ry.   Co. 

Complaint  of  Discrimination  i\n  the  Distribution  of  Cars  for  Loading  Coal. 

Petition  filed  July  26,  1907. 

Case  disposed  of  by  agreement  and  dismissed. 


157 

M.  D.  Harmon,  Norris  City,  111., 

vs. 
Cleveland,  Cincinnati,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co. 

Complaint  of  Lack  of  Depot  Facilities  at  Norris  City. 

Petition  filed  July  27,  1907. 

Sept.  3,  1907,  case  called  for  hearing  and  no  one  appearing  for  petitioner 
case  was  dismissed. 


The  Chicago  Southern  Railway  Co. 

Application  for  approval  of  interlocking  devices  installed  at  crossings  of 
the  Milford  and  Freeland,  and  Rossville  and  Judyville  branches  of  the 
Chicago  and  Eastern  Illinois  R.  R.  Co. 

August  6,  1907,  order  of  the  commission  filed  of  record  as  follows: 

BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  ANP  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 

In  re  application  of  the  Chicago  Southern  Railway  Company  for  approval 
of  plans  for  interlocking  devices  at  crossings  of  branch  lines  of  the  Chicago 
&  Eastern  Illinois  Railroad  Company  known  as  the  Milford  &  Freeland  branch 
and  the  Rossville  &  Judyville  branch. 

This  cause  coming  on  to  be  heard  at  the  regular  session  of  the  Board  of 
Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commissioners  of  the  State  of  Illinois  at  its  August 
meeting  in  the  city  of  Springfield,  on  the  6th  day  of  August,  A.  D.  19.07, 
and  it  appearing  that  two  written  agreements  for  grade  crossings,  properly 
protected  by  interlocking  device,  was  entered  into  between  said  companies 
on  the  27th  day  of  March,  1905,  and  that  petitioner  prepared  plans  for  such 
interlocking  device  with  the  approval  of  the  respondent,  but  through  an 
oversight  the  said  plans  had  not  been  approved  by  the  engineer  of  the  com- 
mission, and  it  further  appearing  that  the  respondent  had  been  served  with  a 
copy  of  said  petition  and  has  filed  its  answer  in  writing  waiving  any  further 
notice  of  a  hearing  on  said  petition  and  consenting  that  the  plans  which  have 
heretofore  been  submitted  to  it  may  now  be  approved  by  the  commission, 
and  it  appearing  to  the  commission  that  the  said  agreements  for  grade  cross- 
ings, protected  by  an  interlocking  device,  were  made  and  entered  into  in  good 
faith  between  the  petitioner  and  respondent,  and  that  the  said  plans  if  pre- 
sented within  six  months  from  the  date  of  said  agreements  would  have  been 
approved  by  the  commission,  it  is  therefore  ordered  that  the  agreements 
between  the  two  companies  and  the  plans  for  said  interlocker,  be  and  they 
are  hereby  approved  and  the  engineer  of  the  commission  be  and  is  hereby 
directed  to  approve  the  same  for  the  commission. 

(Signed)     W.  H.  BOYS,  Chairman. 


The  Chicago  Southern  Ry.  Co. 

Application  for  Approval  of  Interlocking  Devices  Installed  at  Crossing  of 
the  Toledo,  Peoria  and  Western  Ry.  Co. 

August  6,  1907.    Order  of  the  commission  filed  of  record  as  follows: 

BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 

In  re  application  of  the  Chicago  Southern  Railway  Company  for  approval 
of  plans  for  interlocker  at  Toledo,  Peoria  &  Western  Railway  crossing. 

This  cause  coming  on  to  be  heard  at  the  regular  session  of  the  Board  of 
Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commissioners  of  the  State  of  Illinois  at  its  August 
meeting  in  the  city  of  Springfield,  on  the  6th  day  of  August,  A.  D.  1907,  and 
it  appearing  that  a  contract  for  a  grade  crossing,  properly  protected  by  an 


interlocking  device  was  entered  into  between  said  companies  on  the  25th  day 
of  August,  1905,  and  that  petitioner  prepared  plans  for  such  interlocking  de- 
vice with  the  approval  of  the  respondent,  but  through  an  oversight  the  said 
plans  had  not  been  approved  by  the  engineer  of  the  commission,  and  it  fur- 
ther appearing  that  the  respondent  has  been  served  with  a  copy  of  said 
petition  and  has  filed  its  answer  in  writing  waiving  any  further  notice  of  a 
hearing  on  said  petition  and  consenting  that  the  plans  which  have  heretofore 
been  submitted  to  it  may  now  be  approved  by  the  commission,  and  it  appear- 
ing to  the  commission  that  the  said  contract  for  a  grade  crossing,  protected 
by  an  interlocking  device,  was  made  and  entered  into  in  good  faith  between 
the  petitioner  and  respondent,  and  that  the  said  plans  if  presented  within  six 
months  from  the  date  of  said  contract  would  have  been  approved  by  the 
commission,  it  is  therefore  ordered  that  the  contract  between  the  two  com- 
panies and  the  plans  for  the  said  interlocker,  be  and  they  are  hereby  approved 
and  the  engineer  of  the  commission  be  and  is  hereby  directed  to  approve  the 
same  for  the  commission. 

(Signed)     W.  H.  BOYS.  Chairman. 


In  the  matter  of  the  petition 

of 

The  Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. 

Baltimore  and  Ohio  Southwestern  R.  R.  Co.,  and  the 
Southern  Railway  Co.  at  the  meeting  of  the  commissioners 
held  August  8,  1907. 

Opinion  of  the  commission  in  the  matter  of  their  jurisdiction  over  switch- 
ing, as  delivered  by  the  chairman  at  the  meeting  in  Chicago.  August  8.  1907: 

Our  understandng  is  that  whatever  power  the  commission  has  is  con- 
ferred by  this  section  of  the  statute,  section  8  of  the  Extortion  Act,  which 
reads  in  cart  as  follows: 

"The  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commissioners  are  hereby  directed  to  make, 
for  each  of  the  railroad  corporations  doing  business  in  this  State,  as  soon  as 
practicable,  a  schedule  of  reasonable  maximum  rates  of  charges,  for  the  trans- 
portation of  passengers  and  freights,  and  cars  of  each  of  said  railroads"  and 
then  the  section  authorizes  such  changes  to  be  made  from  time  to  time  as 
m»v  be  necessary. 

Our  idea  is  that  that  section  confers  r>ower  on  the  commission  to  fix  maxi- 
mum rates  for  the  transportation  of  cars,  and  the  transportation  of  cars 
means  any  movement  of  cars  from  one  noint  to  another;  whether  it  is  one 
hundred  miles,  or  whether  it  is  one  hundred  feet,  it  is  a  movement  just  the 
same;  and  consequently  if  our  interpretation  is  correct  that  gives  us  complete 
power  to  fix  maximum  charges  in  all  movements  of  oars.  That  would  include 
what  we  generally  understand  to  be  switching  cars  from  one  point  to  another 
within  switching  limits,  or  within  a  town,  or  short  distances;  and  if  we  are 
correct  in  that  conclusion,  then  necessarily  we  have  a  right  to  define  the 
particular  service  that  we  are  fixing  a  maximum  charge  for.  It  seems  to  us 
to  be  immaterial  what  we  call  it.  If  we  define  a  particular  service  and  say 
the  maximum  charge  for  that  service  shall  be  so  nuich;  another  service,  we 
define  it,  give  it  a  name,  and  the  name  is  not  material,  and  say  the  maximum 
charge  for  that  service  shall  be  so  much. 

Now,  if  we  are  correct  in  that,  we  dispose  of  the  two  first  questions  sub- 
mitted. The  first  one  is  as  to  the  power  of  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse 
Commission  to  define  what  constitutes  switching,  and  second  the  power  of  the 
Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission  to  fix  and  define  the  switching  limits. 
If  we  have  the  power  to  fix  the  maximum  charge  for  switching,  as  we  under- 
stand the  term  generally,  we  undoubtedly  have  the  power  to  say  that  for  a 
switch  of  three  miles  the  maximum  charge  shall  be  so  and  so  and  for  five 
miles  it  may  be  a  greater  amount. 


159 

The  third  question  submitted  is  as  to  the  power  of  the  Railroad  and  Ware- 
house Commission  to  establish  joint  rates  for  switching.  It  is  claimed  by  Mr. 
Mayer  in  his  brief  that  we  have  the  power  to  establish  joint  rates;  that  is 
denied  by  the  representatives  of  the  railroad  companies.  No  authorities  have 
been  cited  on  either  side  and  we  have  not  had  time  to  make  the  investiga- 
tion on  that  point  that  we  desire  to  make,  and  do  not  not  care  at  this  time  to 
express  any  opinion.  In  the  reply  brief  filed  by  Mr.  Mayer  he  takes  the  posi- 
tion, as  we  understand  him,  that  the  commission  has  the  right  to  compel  a 
railroad  company  to  absorb  switching  charges,  that  is  to  say,  that  freight 
may  be  delivered  to  one  railroad  in  Chicago  to  be  delivered  to  another  and 
be  transported  by  the  latter  road,  and  that  we  have  a  right  to  say  that  the 
first  road  must  either  look  to  the  road  making  the  haul  for  its  compensation, 
or  do  the  work  without  compensation.  We  do  not  think  that  is  right.  We  do 
not  think  we  have  that  power.  A  drayman,  under  the  decisions,  is  a  common 
carrier  as  well  as  a  railroad.  One  might  as  well  call  a  drayman  to  his  store 
to  get  a  box  and  take  it  to  the  C.,  B.  &  Q.  Ry.  and  collect  the  charges  from  the 
C.,  B.  &  Q.  Ry.  It  seems  to  us  that  is  so,  but  on  the'  general  question  sub- 
mitted as  to  the  right  to  fix  the  maximum  switching  charges,  which  is  not 
disputed,  the  right  to  define  the  service  which  we  intend  to  cover  by  that, 
we  think  we  have  that  power,  and  that  being  true  I  presume  it  will  be  nec- 
essary to  fix  a  time  to  hear  evidence  as  to  what  the  rule  shall  be  and  the 
rates  to  be  fixed. 


Chicago,  Wilmington  and  Vermilion  Coal  Co. 

vs. 
St.  Louis  and  Springfield  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  to  Cross  at  Grade  near  the  County  Line  of  Sangamon  and  Macoupin 

Counties. 

Petition  filed  August  9,  1907. 

Sept.  3,  1907,  place  of  proposed  crossing  viewed  by  the  commission. 
Oct.  22,  1907,  the  order  of  the  commission  in  this  case  was  filed  of  record 
as  follows: 

BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 

Chicago,  Wilmington  and  Vermilion  Coal  Company. 

vs. 
St.  Louis  &  Springfield  Railway  Company. 

It  appears  from  the  petition  filed  in  this  case  that  the  petitioner  is  about  to 
construct  a  switch  track  from  its  coal  mine,  located  in  or  near  the  village  of 
Thayer,  to  a  point  of  connection  with  the  Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy 
Railroad  Company,  some  two  or  three  miles  distant,  and  in  so  doing  it  will 
be  necessary  to  cross  the  main  line  of  respondent's  road.  It  further  appears 
that  petitioner's  switch  track  is  to  be  used  only  for  the  purpose  of  switching 
coal  from  petitioner's  mine  to  the  C.,  B.  &  Q.  R.  R.,  and  that  so  far  as  it  is 
concerned,  the  movements  over  the  proposed  crossing  will  probably  not  exceed 
an  average  of  four  per  day. 

It  further  appears  that  on  the  12th  day  of  September,  A.  D.  1907,  petitioner 
and  respondent  entered  into  a  certain  contract  relative  to  the  proposed  cross- 
ing, wherein  it  is  agreed  among  other  things,  that  the  petitioner  may  cross 
with  its  proposed  switch  track,  the  main  track  of  respondent,  at  grade,  at  a 
point  particularly  described  therein,  and  that  petitioner  shall  install  and 
maintain  at  said  crossing  a  certain  interlocking  device  therein  described. 

And  it  appearing  to  the  commission  that  a  grade  crossing  at  the  point 
mentioned,  if  properly  interlocked,  as  provided  in  said  contract,  will  provide 
adequate  protection  to  life  and  property. 

It  is  therefore  ordered  and  decided  that  petitioner  be  and  it  is  hereby 
granted  the  right  to  cross  with  its  proposed  switch  track  the  main  track  of  the 


i6o 

respondent  at  grade,  at  the  point  particularly  described  in  the  contract  above 
referred  to,  a  copy  of  which  is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  of  this  order. 
It  is  further  ordered  and  decided  that  petitioner  shall  at  its  own  expense 
install  and  maintain  at  said  crossing  an  interlocking  device,  substantially 
as  is  provided  for  in  said  contract,  and  it  is  further  ordered  and  decided 
that  the  said  contract  hereinbefore  referred  to  be  and  the  same  is  hereby 
approved. 

Dated  this  22nd  day  of  October,  A.  D.  1907. 

W.  H.  BOYS,  Chairman. 

B.   A.   ECKHART,   Commissioner. 

J.    A.   WILLOUGHBY,    Commissioner. 


Joliet  and  Southern  Traction  Company 

vs. 

Chicago  and  Alton  R.  R.  Co. 
Atchison,  Topeka  and  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co. 
Chicago,  Lake  Shore  and  Eastern  Ry.  Co. 
and  Elgin,  Joliet  and  Eastern  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  for  a  Crossing  at  Grade  in  Jackson  Street  in  the  City  of  Joliet,  III. 

Petition  filed  August  21,  1907. 

August  27,  1907,  place  of  proposed  crossing  viewed  by  commission. 
September  5,   1907,  commission  granted   permission  to  all  parties  to  file 
briefs. 

December  4,  1907,  order  of  the  commission  filed  of  record  as  follows: 

BEFOBE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  or  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 

Joliet  and  Southern  Traction  Company, 

vs. 

The  Chicago  and  Alton  Railroad  Company, 
Atchison,  Topeka  and  Santa  Fe  Railway  Company, 
The  Chicago,  Lake  Shore  and  Eastern  Railway  Company, 
and  the  Elgin,  Joliet  and  Eastern  Railway  Company. 

Petition  for  a  Grade  Crossing. 

APPEARANCES  : 

For  Petitioner,  J.  K.  NEWHALL,  JOHN  M.  RAYMOND. 
For  Chicago  &  Alton  Railroad  Company,  JAMES  MILES. 
For  Chicago,  Lake  Shore  and  Eastern  R.  R.  Co.,  and  Elgin,  Joliet 
and  Eastern  Ry.  Co.,  R.  W.  CAMPBELL. 

The  petitioner  in  this  case  is  a  railroad  corporation  organized  under  the 
laws  of  the  State  of  Illinois  relating  to  the  incorporation  of  railroad  com- 
panies, and  is  authorized  by  its  charter  to  construct  and  operate  a  railroad 
from  the  city  of  Joliet,  in  Will  county,  in  a  southwesterly  direction  through 
the  counties  of  Grundy,  Will  and  Livingston  to  the  city  of  Dwight,  in 
Livingston  county.  The  road  is  to  be  operated  by  electricity. 

On  the  23rd  day  of  April,  A.  D.  1906,  the  city  council  of  the  city  of  Joliet 
duly  passed  its  ordinance  number  2233  authorizing  the  petitioner  to  construct, 
maintain  and  operate  its  railroad  on  and  over  certain  streets  in  the  city 
of  Joliet  and  particularly  on  and  over  Jackson  street,  in  said  city,  from  the 
intersection  of  such  street  with  Chicago  street,  easterly  to  the  eastern  cor- 
porate limits  of  the  city.  In  constructing  its  line  on  Jackson  street  it  will 
be  necessary  for  the  petitioner  to  cross  the  tracks  of  all  of  the  respondents. 


The  Chicago  and  Alton  Railroad  Company's  tracks  enter  the  city  of  Joliet 
at  a  point  on  the  southern  city  limits,  and  run  thence  directly  north  through 
the  city.  The  tracks  of  the"  Atchison,  Topeka  and  Santa  F6  Railway  Company 
are  adjacent  to  and  parallel  with  the  tracks  of  the  Chicago  and  Alton  Rail- 
road Company.  North  of  Jefferson  street  the  tracks  of  the  Chicago,  Lake 
Shore  and  Eastern  Railway  Company  and  the  Elgin,  Joliet  and  Eastern 
Railway  Company  run  north  parallel  with  the  tracks  of  the  Chicago  and 
Alton  Railroad  Company  and  the  Atchison,  Topeka  and  Santa  Fe  Railway 
Company,  to  a  point  north  of  Jackson  street. 

On  the  23rd  day  of  January,  A.  D.  1906,  the  city  council  of  the  city  of 
Joliet  passed  an  ordinance  requiring  all  of  the  respondents  to  elevate  their 
tracks  through  certain  portions  of  the  city,  and  this  ordinance  and  the  pro- 
visions thereof,  were  duly  accepted  by  the  respondents.  By  the  provisions 
of  this  ordinance  the  track  elevation  commences  on  the  south  line  of  Ohio 
street  and  with  a  gradually  ascending  grade  of  five-tenths  of  one  per  cent 
crosses  Jackson,  Benton,  Webster,  Cass,  Clinton,  Van  Buren  and  Jefferson 
streets.  At  Jackson  street  the  elevation  will  be  about  four  feet  above  the 
present  grade  of  the  street.  Benton  and  Webster  streets  are,  by  the  pro- 
visions of  the  ordinance,  vacated  at  the  point  where  they  are  crossed  by  the 
track  elevation.  A  subway  is  provided  for  at  Cass  and  at  Clinton  streets. 
Van  Buren  street  is  vacated  and  a  subway  is  provided  for  at  Jefferson 
street.  South  of  Jefferson  street  three  subways  are  provided  for. 

The  railroad  tracks  of  respondents  are  laid  through  the  center  of  the  city, 
that  is  to  say,  the  population  east  of  the  tracks  is  about  equal  to  that  west  of 
the  tracks.  Aside  from  these  six  subways  so  provided  for  by  the  ordinance, 
all  other  intervening  streets,  or  the  portion  thereof  which  will  be  occupied 
by  the  enbankments,  are  vacated.  Street  railway  tracks  are  now  laid  and 
being  used  on  all  of  the  streets  where  subways  are  provided,  except  on 
Clinton  street,  and  this  street  is  used  very  extensively  by  wagons  and  other 
vehicles,  and  because  of  the  fact  that  this  is  the  only  street  where  a  subway 
is  provided  which  is  not  occupied  by  street  railway  tracks,  the  officials  of 
the  city  of  Joliet  and  the  people  owning  frontage  on  the  street,  decline  to 
give  their  consent  to  petitioner  to  construct  and  operate  its  line  on  this 
street. 

The  petitioner's  line  enters  the  city  of  Joliet  from  the  northwest  and  runs 
thence  in  a  southerly  direction  to  Jackson  street,  and  thence  east  on  Jack- 
son street  to  the  city  limits  and  to  require  it  to  cross  the  tracks  of  the 
respondents  at  any  point  south  of  Jackson  street  would  have  the  effect  of 
lengthening  its  line,  which  it  desires,  of  course,  to  avoid.  The  Atchison, 
Topeka  and  Santa  F6  Railway  Company  has  at  the  present  time  four  tracks 
crossing  Jackson  street. 

Immediately  east  of  these  tracks  the  Chicago  and  Alton  Railroad  Company 
have  six  tracks  crossing  Jackson  street.  Immediately  east  of  and  adjoining 
the  tracks  of  the  Chicago  and  Alton  Railroad  Company,  are  two  tracks  owned 
by  the  Chicago,  Lake  Shore  and  Eastern  Railroad  Company  and  one  track 
owned  by  the  Elgin,  Joliet  and  Eastern  Railway  Company,  making  a  total  of 
thirteen  tracks. 

After  the  passage  of  the  track  elevation  ordinance  referred  to,  the  city 
council  of  the  city  of  Joliet  passed  another  ordinance  authorizing  the  Atchi- 
son, Topeka  and  Santa  F6  Railway  Company  to  elevate  its  two  main  tracks 
over  Jackson  street  and  required  it  to  construct  a  subway  under  such  tracks. 
The  elevation  of  these  tracks  has  been  completed  and  a  subway  constructed, 
the  entrance  to  said  subway  from  the  east  on  Jackson  street  being  about 
seventy  feet  west  of  the  west  track  owned  by  said  company,  and  which  is 
at  grade. 

Under  these  conditions  it  is  the  contention  of  the  petitioner  that  it  is 
impossible  for  it  to  construct  an  overhead  crossing  because  the  two  tracks 
which  have  been  elevated  by  the  Atchison,  Topeka  and  Santa  F6  Railway 
Company  would  interfere  with  such  a  plan.  The  evidence  in  the  case  shows 
that  if  the  petitioner  is  required  to  construct  a  subway  at  this  point  that  such 
subway  can  not  be  naturally  drained  because  the  bottom  of  the  same  would 

—II  O 


1 62 

be  below  any  and  all  of  the  sewers  which  have  been  constructed  in  that  part 
of  the  city,  and  that  therefore  such  subway  would  have  to  be  drained  by 
artificial  means,  which  is  not  only  quite  expensive,  but  is  very  unsatisfactory. 

We  are  thoroughly  satisfied  that  the  petitioner  has  been  very  diligent  in 
attempting  to  avoid  a  grade  crossing  at  the  point  mentioned,  and  perhaps 
because  of  this  fact  the  city  council  of  the  city  of  Joliet,  on  August  26,  1907, 
duly  passed  a  resolution,  which  is  as  follows: 

"Be  it  resolved  by  the  city  council  of  Joliet,  Illinois.  That  the  plans  for  the 
crossing  of  the  railroad  tracks  on  the  Chicago  and  Alton  Railroad,  the 
Atchison,  Topeka  and  Santa  Fe  Railroad,  the  Chicago,  Lake  Shore  and 
Eastern  Railway  and  the  Elgin,  Joliet  and  Eastern  Railway  on  Jackson 
street,  near  Michigan  street,  as  submitted  by  the  Joliet  and  Southern  Trac- 
tion Company,  be  and  the  same  are  hereby  authorized  to  cross  at  grade  the 
present  surface  tracks  of  said  railroads,  and  that  said  work  shall  be  done 
subject  to  the  approval  of  the  committee  on  streets  and  alleys  and  the  city 
engineer." 

In  view  of  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  the  petitioner  crossing  the  tracks 
of  the  respondents,  its  evident  good  faith  in  the  matter,  and  the  attitude  of  the 
officials  of  the  city  of  Joliet,  we  would  be  very  loath  to  refuse  a  grade  cross- 
ing to  the  petitioner,  unless  to  grant  such  permission  could  be  construed 
as  an  act  of  gross,  if  not  criminal  negligence  on  the  part  of  the  commission. 

The  evidence  in  this  case  shows  that  the  Chicago  and  Alton  Railroad  Com- 
pany have  about  eighty-two  (82)  train  movements  per  day  across  Jackson 
street;  that  the  Chicago,  Lake  Shore  and  Eastern  Railway  Company  have 
about  ten  (10)  movements  per  day  and  the  Elgin,  Joliet  and  Eastern  Railway 
Company  the  same  number.  The  Atchison,  Topeka  and  Santa  Fe  Railway 
Company  was  not  represented  at  the  hearing  and  no  evidence  was  introduced 
showing  the  number  of  trains  operated  by  it,  but  inasmuch  as  this  is  its  main 
line  on  which  it  operates  practically  as  many  trains  as  the  Chicago  and  Alton 
Railroad  Company,  we  are  perhaps  safe  in  saying  that  it  has  at  least  fifty 
(50)  train  movements  over  this  crossing  per  day.  The  evidence  also  shows 
that  the  petitioner  will  operate  a  car  over  this  crossing  every  ten  minutes, 
and  if  cars  are  operated  from  6:00  a.  m.  until  10:00  p.  m.  there  would  be 
approximately  ninety  (90)  cars  run  over  the  crossing  during  each  day, 
making  the  total  number  of  movements  approximately  two  hundred  and  fifty 
(250)  per  day.  As  we  view  it  these  facts  alone  furnish  a  sufficient  reason 
for  refusing  permission  to  construct  a  grade  crossing  at  this  point,  but  there 
are  other  difficulties  in  the  way.  If  a  grade  crossing  was  permitted  cars 
approaching  from  the  west  would  be  entirely  cut  off  from  any  view  of 
trains  on  the  respondents'  lines  by  the  elevated  tracks  of  the  Atchison, 
Topeka  and  Sant  F6  Railway  Company  until  they  were  within  a  very  few 
feet  of  the  crossing.  The  tracks  of  the  respondents  across  this  street  when 
the  track  elevation  is  completed,  will  be  laid  upon  a  grade  of  five-tenths  of 
one  per  cent  and  trains  approching  the  crossing  from  the  north  will  prob- 
ably be  operated  at  a  higher  rate  of  speed,  because  of  this  grade,  than  would 
otherwise  be  necessary,  while  trains  approaching  the  crossing  from  the 
south  would  be  on  a  descending  grade  and  consequently  not  under  as  perfect 
control  as  if  the  tracks  were  level.  The  evidence  also  shows  that  the  Chicago 
and  Alton  Railroad  Company  and  the  Atchison,  Topeka  and  Santa  Fe  Rail- 
way Company  operate  a  large  number  of  through  passenger  trains  and  that 
such  trains  are  operated  over  this  crossing  at  an  average  rate  of  speed  of 
thirty  miles  per  hour.  All  of  these  things  combine  to  make  the  crossing  a 
very  dangerous  one.  We  do  not  think  counsel  for  the  respondents  exaggerate 
in  the  least  when  they  say  in  their  brief,  "if  a  death  trap  were  deliberately 
planned,  human  ingenuity  would  have  trouble  in  contriving  a  worse  one." 

We  are  not  unmindful  of  the  fact  that  to  permit  petitioner  to  cross  these 
tracks  at  Jefferson  street  would  better  serve  the  convenience  of  that  portion 
of  the  citizens  of  Joliet  who  will  patronize  the  line,  nor  of  the  fact  that  to 
require  the  petitioner  to  construct  a  subway  at  this  point  will  mean  the  ex- 
penditure of  a  considerable  sum  of  money,  but  we  are  not  willing  to  balance 
that  expenditure  against  loss  of  life  or  limb. 

In  the  evidence  presented  at  the  hearing  we  are  unable  to  find  a  single 
fact  that  would  justify  us  in  entering  an  order  in  this  case  permitting  the 
petitioner  to  cross  at  grade. 


163 

When  a  question  of  this  character  is  presented  to  the  commission  its  first 
and  most  important  duty  is  to  see  to  it  that  the  lives  of  the  traveling  public 
and  of  the  employes  of  the  parties  interested  are  properly  protected. 

In  a  case  recently  decided  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  Pennsylvania  (Penn- 
sylvania Railroad  Company  vs.  Waterloo  Street  Railway  Company,  188  Pa. 
St.,  79)  the  Court  said: 

"What  a  century  ago  were  deemed  unsurmountable  obstacles  to  an  under 
or  over  crossing  are  now  treated  as  only  engineering  difficulties,  which  skill 
and  capital  can  generally  overcome.  *  *  *  It  is  not  as  if  the  result  of  a 
collision  were  the  injury  to,  or  even  the  destruction  of  property,  which  com- 
pared with  rapid  and  cheap  travel  and  transit  might  perhaps  be  trivial  but 
it  is  the  dangers  to  the  persons  of  the  public  which  is  to  be  avoided.  Safety 
is  the  object  in  view,  and  therefore  on  determining  what  is  reasonable  we 
must  not  balance  expense  and  difficulty  against  loss  of  life  or  limb." 

In  another  case  (Chester  Traction  Company  vs.  Railroad  Company,  188  Pa. 
St.,  105)  the  Court  said: 

"But  one  conclusion  can  reasonably  be  formed  from  these  undisputed  facts; 
a  grade  crossing  is  highly  dangerous  to  the  traveling  public  on  both  roads. 
All  precautions  taken  to  avoid  danger  serve  only  to  lessen  it.  The  millions 
of  passengers  on  the  two  roads  are  at  the  risk  of  the  few  railroad  servants 
who  have  charge  of  them;  recklessness,  negligence,  inattention  or  dullness 
on  the  part  of  the  servants  will  still  endanger  life  and  limb  of  the  passen- 
gers. 

"While  we  are  writing  this  opinion  the  news  of  the  Cohoes  accident  where 
the  steam  road  was  crossed  at  grade  by  the  electric,  has  come  to  us.  Every 
passenger  in  the  electric  qar  goes  into  one  or  the  other  of  the  two  classes  of 
sixteen  killed  and  seventeen  injured.  The  servants  of  each  system  attribute 
the  accident  to  the  negligence  of  those  of  the  other. 

"Increasing  the  number  of  crossings  only  increases  the  danger  by  increas- 
ing the  chances  for  collisions." 

On  the  question  of  the  expense  in  separating  grades  the  Court  in  this  same 
case  said: 

"But  the  financial  inability  of  the  company  is  not  a  test  to  determine 
whether  an  improvement  to  carry  safely  three  millions  of  passengers  is  rea- 
sonable and  practicable;  otherwise  the  poorer  the  company  the  more  un- 
limited its  right  to  interfere  with  the  exercise  by  the  older  company  of  its 
franchises  and  the  more  freely  can  it  discharge  the  safety  of  the  traveling 
public.  *  *  *  Grade  crossings  are  not  to  be  established  to  promote  the 
mere  convenience  of  the  railroad  seeking  to  cross.  *  *  *  Admit  that  a 
collision  would  cost  one  or  the  other  of  the  companies,  or  both,  a  heavy  sum. 
That  would  mean  a  loss  of  dividends  to  the  company  and  a  loss  of  life  or 
limb  to  the  traveling  public;  the  risks  are  not  equal  and  humanity  shrinks 
from  off-setting  the  one  against  the  other." 

Our  views  are  in  harmony  with  the  views  expressed  by  the  Court  in  these 
opinions. 

It  is  therefore  ordered  that  the  petitioner,  the  Joliet  and  Southern  Traction 
Company,  be  and  it  is  hereby  authorized  to  cross  the  tracks  of  the  Chicago 
and  Alton  Railroad  Company,  the  Atchison,  Topeka  and  Santa  F6  Railway 
Company,  the  Chicago,  Lake  Shore  and  Eastern  Railway  Company  and  the 
Elgin,  Joliet  and  Eastern  Railway  Company  on  Jackson  street,  in  the  city 
of  Joliet,  Will  county,  Illinois,  by  means  of  a  subway,  to  be  constructed  by 
the  petitioner  under  the  several  tracks  of  the  railroad  companies  named. 

It  is  further  ordered  and  decided  that  the  Chicago  and  Alton  Railroad 
Company,  the  Atchison,  Topeka  and  Santa  Fe  Railway  Company,  the  Chicago, 
Lake  Shore  and  Eastern  Railway  Company  and  the  Elgin,  Joliet  and  Eastern 
Railway  Company  shall,  if  practicable,  at  the  same  time  such  subway  is  con- 
structed by  the  petitioner,  elevate  their  several  tracks  across  Jackson  street 
so  as  to  conform  to  the  grade  provided  for  in  the  ordinance  of  the  city  of 
Joliet  requiring  the  elevation  of  such  tracks. 

It  is  further  ordered  and  decided  that  the  cost  of  separating  the  grades 
at  the  point  named  shall  be  borne  and  paid  by  the  railroad  companies  in- 
terested, in  the  following  proportion,  to-wit:  Two-thirds  of  the  expense  of 
separating  such  grades  shall  be  paid  by  the  petitioner  and  one-third  of  the 
expense  of  separating  such  grades  shall  be  paid  by  the  respondents. 


164 

It  is  further  ordered  and  decided  that  should  the  petitioner  at  any  time 
before  the  construction  of  said  subway  find  a  more  feasible  and  practicable 
place  to  effect  such  crossing,  that  then  and  in  such  case  the  same  may  be 
presented  to  this  commission  for  its  consideration  by  means  of  a  supplemental 
petition. 

Dated  this  4th  day  of  December,  A.  D.  1907. 

(Signed)     W.  H.  BOYS,  Chairman. 

B.  A.  ECKHART,  Commissioner. 
J.  A.  WIIXOUGHBY,  Commissioner. 


Mississippi  Valley  Electric  Ry.  Co. 

vs. 

The  Wabash  R.  R.  Co. 
and  the  The  Toledo,  Peoria  and  Western  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  for  Grade  Crossings  near  Carthage,  III.,  and  Elvaston,  III. 

Petition  filed  September  20,  1907. 

September  25,  1907,  place  of  proposed  crossings  viewed  by  commission. 

October  17,  1907,  petitioner  granted  leave  to  file  amended  petition. 

October  23,  1907,  amended  petition  filed  making  the  Chicago,  Burlington 
and  Quincy  R.  R.  Co.  an  additional  party  respondent. 

November  5,  1907,  case  continued  without  date  at  the  request  of  the 
petitioner. 

Case  still  pending. 


F.  H.  Robertson,  Essex,  111., 

vs. 
Cleveland,  Cincinnati,  Chicago  and  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co. 

Complaint  of  Insufficient  Passenger  Service  on  the  Kankakee  and  Seneca 
Division  of  the  C.,  C.,  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co. 

Petition  filed  October  22,  1907. 

December  5,  1907,  case  heard  before  the  commission. 

January  25,  1908,  order  of  the  commission  filed  of  record  as  follows: 

BEFORE  THE  RAILROAD  AND  WAREHOUSE  COMMISSION  OF  ILLINOIS. 

F.  H.  Robertson, 

vs. 
Cleveland,  Cincinnati,  Chicago  and  St.  Louis  Railway  Co. 

Inadequate  Passenger  Service. 

APPEARANCES : 

For  Petitioner,  MR.  J.  W.  RAUSCH. 

For  Respondent,  MR.  GEORGE  B.  GILLESPIE. 

The  complaint  in  this  case,  which  is  accompanied  by  a  petition  signed 
by  more  than  three  hundred  residents  of  the  villages  along  the  line  of  the 
road,  is  based  upon  the  fact  that  the  respondent  does  not  operate  any  passen- 
ger trains  upon  the  so-called  Kankakee  and  Seneca  branch  of  its  road. 

The  facts  appear  to  be  as  follows:  The  Kankakee  and  Seneca  Railway  Com- 
pany is  a  corporation  duly  organized  under  the  general  laws  of  this  State 
and  owns  a  line  of  railroad  42.5  miles  in  length,  extending  from  Kankakee, 


165 

Illinois,  to  Seneca,  Illinois.  The  capital  stock  of  this  company  is  $10,000.00, 
one-half  of  which  is  owned  by  the  respondent  and  the  other  half  is  owned 
by  the  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railroad  Company.  By  an  arrange- 
ment between  the  Rock  Island  Company  and  the  respondent,  the  exact  terms 
of  which  do  not  appear  from  the  evidence,  the  respondent  is  now,  and  for 
a  number  of  years  last  past  has  been,  operating  the  road.  A  passenger  train 
was  operated  over  the  line  for  a  time,  but  was  discontinued  some  ten  or 
twelve  years  ago,  since  which  time  only  freight  or  mixed  trains  have  been 
operated. 

Of  the  cities  and  villages  through  which  the  road  runs,  Kankakee  has  a 
population  of  20,000  or  more;  Bonfield,  250;  Essex,  500;  South  Willmington, 
4,000;  Gardner,  1,500;  Mazon,  800;  Wauponsee,  150;  Lanham,  50;  Seneca, 
1,350,  and  the  country  through  which  it  passes  is  a  well  settled  farming 
country.  The  time-card  offered  in  evidence  shows  that  four  third-class  trains 
are  at  the  present  time  run  over  the  road  daily,  Sundays  excepted.  Train 
No.  237  is  scheduled  to  leave  Kankakee  at  6:45  a.  m.  and  is  due  at  Seneca 
at  10:45  a.  m.,  the  scheduled  rate  of  speed  being  about  ten  and  one-half  miles 
per  hour.  Returning  this  train  leaves  Seneca  as  No.  234,  at  12:01  p.  m.  and 
is  due  to  arrive  at  Kankakee  at  3:50  p.  m.,  the  scheduled  rate  of  speed  being 
about  eleven  miles  per  hour.  Train  No.  216  leaves  Seneca  at  7:15  a.  m.  and 
is  due  to  arrive  at  Kankakee  at  10:00  a.  m.  Returning  this  train  leaves 
Kankakee  as  No.  215  at  4:05  p.  m.  and  is  due  to  arrive  at  Seneca  at  6:45  p.  m., 
the  scheduled  running  time  of  the  last  two  trains  being  about  sixteen  miles 
per  hour. 

Each  of  these  trains  carry  freight,  express,  baggage,  mail  and  passengers, 
and  for  the  accommodation  of  passengers  a  combination  car  and  passenger 
coach  are  attached  to  each  train.  The  Kankakee  and  Seneca  Railway  con- 
nects with  the  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Company  at  Seneca; 
crosses  the  main  line  of  the  Atchison,  Topeka  and  Santa  F§  Railroad  Com- 
pany at  Mazon;  the  main  line  of  the  Chicago  and  Alton  Railroad  Company 
at  Gardner;  the  Elgin,  Joliet  and  Eastern  Railroad  Company  at  Coster;  the 
main  line  of  the  Wabash  Railroad  Company  at  Essex,  and  connects  with  the 
main  line  of  the  respondents'  road,  the  Chicago,  Indiana  and  Southern  Rail- 
road Company,  and  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company  at  Kankakee. 
At  each  of  these  points  there  is  an  interchange  of  business  with  connecting 
lines,  and  as  the  switching  at  all  intermediate  points  is  performed  by  the 
regular  train  crews,  the  result  is  that  these  trains  are  very  frequently  behind 
time,  and  the  service,  so  far  as  passengers  are  concerned,  is  very  unsatis- 
factory. 

The  evidence  on  the  part  of  the  petitioner  tends  to  show  that  the  passenger 
coaches  used  on  these  trains  are  old  and  dirty,  and  neither  comfortably 
heated  nor  adequately  lighted;  that  the  trains  are  frequently  late,  thus 
causing  passengers  to  miss  connections  at  connecting  points,  and  because 
of  this  fact  ninety-five  per  cent  of  the  passengers  from  South  Willmington 
and  Gardner  and  that  immediate  vicinity  going  to  Morris,  the  county  seat 
of  Grundy  county,  take  the  Alton  road  to  Joliet  and  the  Rock  Island  road 
from  that  point  to  Morris,  traveling  a  distance  of  fifty  miles  rather  than 
take  the  chances  of  missing  the  Rock  Island  connection  at  Seneca,  although 
the  distance  is  only  about  twenty-eight  mtiles.  The  clerk  of  the  Grundy 
county  circuit  court  testified  that  it  was  the  uniform  practice  to  allow  jurors 
and  witnesses  100  miles  mileage  via  Joliet,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  it 
was  only  a  little  more  than  half  that  distance  via  Seneca,  and  this,  because 
of  the  uncertainty  of  the  trains  on  the  respondent's  road. 

Passengers  from  these  points  to  Morris  would  naturally  take  respondent's 
train  No.  237,  which  is  due  to  arrive  at  Seneca  at  10:45  a.  m.  A  northbound 
train  on  the  Rock  Island  is  due  at  Seneca  at  10:48  a.  m.,  and  should  this 
connection  be  missed  the  next  train  on  which  passengers  for  Morris  could 
take  passage  is  due  at  Seneca  at  4:54  p.  m. 

Respondent  offered  in  evidence  copies  of  the  train  sheets  showing  the  time 
of  arrival  of  the  several  trains  operated  on  this  branch  covering  a  period  of 
about  21  months.  These  train  sheets  show  the  following  facts:  Out  of  a 
total  of  559  days  train  No.  216  arrived  at  Kankakee  on  time  455  times  and 


i66 

was  from  10  minutes  to  two  hours  and  thirty  minutes  late  104  times;  No. 
234  arrived  at  Kankakee  on  time  496  times  and  was  from  10  minutes  to 
four  hours  late  sixty -three  times;  No.  215  arrived  at  Serieca  on  time  486 
times  and  was  from  ten  minutes  to  three  hours  late  seventy-three  times; 
No.  237  arrived  at  Seneca  on  time  492  times  and  was  from  ten  minutes  to 
three  hours  and  thirty  minutes  late  sixty-seven  times.  The  evidence  on  the 
part  of  the  petitioner  tended  to  show  that  at  intermediate  stations  these 
trains  were  almost  invariably  late.  This  evidence  is,  however,  not  incon- 
sistent with  the  train  sheet  records,  because  of  the  fact  that  the  scheduled 
rate  of  speed  is  so  slow  that  a  train  might  be  an  hour  late  at  Gardner  and 
still  arrive  at  the  terminus  on  time.' 

But  independently  of  the  evidence  on  this  point,  it  seems  to  us  that  the 
facilities  furnished  by  the  respondent  are  wholly  inadequate  to  the  needs 
of  the  communities  through  which  this  road  runs,  and  this  being  so,  is  it 
not  the  legal  duty  of  the  respondent  to  operate  a  separate  passenger  train 
over  this  branch  line? 

We  think  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  The  People  ex  rel.  vs.  St. 
Louis,  Alton  and  Terre  Haute  Railroad  Company,  176  111.,  512,  has  answered 
this  question  in  the  affirmative.  That  was  a  petition  for  a  writ  of  mandamus 
to  compel  the  respondent  to  furnish,  place,  run  and  operate  "on  said  railroad 
extending  from  Eldorado  to  DuQuoin  a  daily  (Sundays  excepted)  passenger 
train,  each  way,  suitable  and  sufficient  to  carry  all  passengers,  with  their 
necessary  baggage,  in  comfortable  and  reasonable  security,  and  at  a  reason- 
able speed,  and  to  operate  said  line  of  railroad  from  East  St.  Louis  to  El- 
dorado as  a  continuous  line.  *  *  *"  The  evidence  in  the  case  showed 
that  the  only  train  operated  over  the  whole  length  of  the  branch  was  a  mixed 
train  consisting  of  coal,  stock  and  freight  cars,  to  which  was  attached  a 
combination  car  and  passenger  coach;  that  it  was  a  slow  train,  often  being 
behind  its  schedule  time  from  twenty  minutes  to  three  hours,  and  certain 
other  facts  not  necessary  to  here  state. 

It  was  claimed  in  behalf  of  respondent  that  while  it  was  obliged  to  furnish 
cars  for  the  carriage  of  passengers,  yet  it  was  not  necessarily  obliged  to  carry 
passengers  upon  a  separate  passenger  train,  and  that  it  had  the  right  to  ex- 
ercise its  own  discretion  as  to  the  manner  of  their  transportation. 

The  Court  said  (p.  519) : 

"The  question  is  not  whether  appellee  should  run  more  than  one  train,  but 
the  question,  is,  whether  is  does  all  that  it  is  required  to  do  when  it  runs 
a  passenger  coach  attached  to  a. freight  train;  or  whether  it  is  its  duty  to 
run  one  or  more  passenger  coaches,  separate  and  disconnected  from  freight 
cars,  for  the  accommodation  of '  passengers  only  and  not  of  passengers  in 
connection  with  shippers." 
'After  discussing  certain  questions  in  the  case,  the  Court  said  (p.  524) : 

'"*  *  *  the  right  of  the  people  to  insist  upon  the  running  of  a  separate 
passenger  train  is  implied  from  the  charter  obligations  to  equip  and  operate 
the  road.  Inasmuch  as  a  railroad  company  is  bound  to  carry  both  passen- 
gers and  freight  the  obligation  of  the  appellee  required  it  to  furnish  all 
necessary  rolling  stock  and  equipment  for  the  suitable  and  proper  operation 
of  the  railroad  as  a  carrier  of  passengers,  no  less  than  as  a  carrier  of  freight. 
It  can  not  be  said  that  the  carriage  of  passengers  in  a  car  attached  to  a 
freight  train  is  a  suitable  and  proper  operation  of  a  railroad,  so  far  as  the 
carriage  of  passengers  is  concerned.  The  transportation  of  passengers  on  a 
freight  train,  or  on  a  mixed  train,  is  subordinate  to  the  transportation  of 
freight,  a  mere  incident  to  the  business  of  carrying  freight.  To  furnish 
such  cars  as  are  necessary  for  the  suitable  and  proper  carriage  of  passengers 
involves  the  necessity  of  adopting  that  mode  of  carrying  passengers  which  is 
best  adapted  to  secure  fcheir  safety  and  convenience.  This  can  be  accom- 
plished better  by  operating  a  separate  passenger  train  than  by  operating  a 
mixed  train.  That  is  to  say,  the  duty  of  furnishing  all  necessary  rolling 
stock  and  equipment  for  the  suitable  and  proper  operation  of  a  railroad  carry- 
ing passengers  involves  and  implies  the  duty  of  furnishing  a  train  which 
shall  be  run  for  the  purpo*se  of  transporting  passengers  only,  and  not  freight 
and  passengers  together." 


i67 

Again  the  Court  said  (p.  526) : 

"It  follows,  that  when  the  only  train  operated  by  a  railroad  company  is  a 
mixed  train,  passengers  being  unable  to  ride  upon  any  other  kind  of  train, 
are  forced  to  incur  risks  and  submit  to  inconveniences,  which  do  not  exist 
on  a  separate  passenger  train.  Hence,  the  operation  of  a  railroad  with  a 
mixed  train  only  is  inconsistent  with  the  duty  of  furnishing  such  cars  and 
locomotives  as  are  necessary  to  the  suitable  and  proper  operation  of  the 
railroad  when  engaged  in  the  passenger  traffic.  We  are  not  unmindful  of 
the  fact  that,  within  certain  limits,  a  discretion  may  be  exercised  as  to  what 
rolling  stock  and  equipment  are  necessary  for  the  suitable  and  proper  opera- 
tion of  a  railroad  carrying  passengers.  When  the  mode  of  carrying  passen- 
gers is  separate  from  the  mode  of  carrying  freight  the  legitimate  exercise 
of  discretion  may  begin.  What  we  hold  is,  that  there  can  not  be  suitable 
and  proper  operation  of  the  railroad  as  a  carrier  of  passengers,  when  the 
car  in  which  it  carries  its  passengers,  is  part  of  a  freight  train,  because 
freight  trains  are  inferior  to  passenger  trains,  and  travel  in  them  is  attended 
with  less  comfort,  convenience  and  safety  than  travel  in  passenger  trains. 
The  inferiority  of  a  freight  train  to  a  passenger  train  as  a  mode  of  carrying 
passengers  is  so  obvious  that  no  man  of  ordinary  understanding  would 
regard  the  use  of  a  freight  train  for  the  purpose  of  hauling  a  passenger  car, 
as  a  suitable  and  proper  operation  of  a  railroad  in  the  matter  of  transporting 
passengers." 

If  we  correctly  understand  the  holding  of  the  court  in  this  case  it  is  then 
the  legal  duty  of  the  respondent,  under  the  circumstances  disclosed  by  the 
evidence  in  the  case  under  consideration,  to  operate  at  least  one  separate 
passenger  train  in  each  direction  over  its  line  daily,  unless  it  is  to  be  ex- 
cused from  this  duty  by  certain  facts  which  we  will  now  consider. 

It  is  contended  by  the  respondent: 

(1)  That  the  Kankakee  and  Seneca  Railway  is  operated  by  it,  not  in 
connection  with  its  other  lines,  but  as  a  separate  and  independent  enterprise. 

(2)  That  the  revenue  derived  from  the  operation  of  this  branch  is  not 
sufficient  to  pay  the  operating  expenses  of  the  road  and  its  fixed  charges,  and 

(3)  That  this  commission  has  no  power  or  jurisdiction  to  enter  an  order 
which  will  be  binding  upon  the  respondent. 

It  is  perhaps  true,  as  claimed,  that  a  separate  account  is  kept  by  the  re- 
spondent showing  the  income  and  operating  expenses  of  the  Kankakee  and 
Seneca  branch,  but  the  fact  is  also  shown  that  the  respondent  owns  one-half 
of  the  capital  stock  of  the  Kankakee  and  Seneca  Railway,  and  by  an  arrange- 
ment with  the  owner  of  the  other  half  of  the  stock,  is  now,  and  for  many 
years  past  has  been,  operating  the  road.  It  connects  with  its  main  line  at 
Kankakee,  and  we  think  we  are  justified  by  the  evidence  in  holding  that  it 
is  operated  in  connection  with  the  main  line  and  other  branches  of  the 
respondent's  railroad  as  one  system. 

Respondent  offered  in  evidence  a  summary  of  its  accounts  for  the  year 
ending  December-  31,  1906.  From  this  it  appears  that  the  income  of  the 
road  was  sufficient  to  pay  its  operating  expenses  and  leave  net  earnings 
amounting  to  $1,622.55.  Its  fixed  charges  and  taxes  amounted  to  $6,750.61, 
leaving  a  deficit  after  paying  operating  expenses,  fixed  charges  and  taxes 
of  $5,128.06.  The  summary  of  operations  for  the  first  nine  months  of  the 
year  1907  is  in  substantial  accord  with  the  showing  for  the  year  1906. 

If  the  Kankakee  and  Seneca  branch  is  to  be  considered  separate  and  apart 
from  the  other  lines  operated  by  the  respondent  in  the  State  of  Illinois, 
we  should  hesitate  to  recommend  to  the  respondent  that  it  put  on  and  operate 
passenger  trains  on  this  branch,  but  we  see  no  reason  why  this  branch  should 
be  considered  separately  and  by  itself.  The  respondent  operates  its  main 
road  and  branches,  and  the  Kankakee  and  Seneca  Railway  as  one  system, 
and  it  appears  from  its  report,  which  it  is  required  to  file  with  the  Railroad 
and  Warehouse  Commission,  that  its  gross  earnings  in  the  State  of  Illinois 
for  the  year  ending  June  30,  1907,  exclusive  of  the  Kankakee  and  Seneca 
Railway,  were  $6,291,219.49,  and  that  its  net  income  from  the  operation  per 
mile  of  road  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  after  deducting  the  expenses  of  opera- 
tion, was  $2,943.58. 


i68 

The  question  here  raised  by  the  respondent  was  considered  by  the  court 
in  the  case  above  cited,  and  it  was  said  (p.  530) : 

"If  it  be  admitted  that  a  railroad  company  is  not  bound  to  run  a  separate 
passenger  train  when  its  business  is  not  sufficient  to  warrant  it  in  doing 
so,  we  are  confronted  at  this  point  with  the  question,  whether  this  doctrine 
refers  to  the  business  done  by  the  main  road  and  other  roads  leased  by  it 
and  connected  with  it,  all  of  which  are  operated  *  *  *  as  one  line,  or 
whether  it  can  be  made  to  refer  to  a  small  part  of  the  continuous  line  or 
system  which  happens  to  run  through  a  section  of  country,  where  the 
freight  is  not  so  much  and  the  passengers  are  not  so  many  as  is  the  case  on 
some  other  part  of  the  line.  We  are  of  opinion  that  the  whole  business  of 
the  various  parts  operated  as  one  line  should  be  taken  into  consideration 
where  the  circumstances  are  such  as  are  revealed  by  this  record.  The  duty 
required  of  a  railroad  company  in  the  matter  of  transporting  passengers  is 
the  duty  to  meet  and  supply  the  public  wants.  These  wants  are  measured 
by  the  business  actually  done,  or  what  it  could  be  clearly  shown  could  be 
done  if  increased  facilities  were  granted.  That  there  is  here  a  public  de- 
mand for  passenger  service  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  a  passenger  car  is 
attached  to  a  freight  train,  and  that  passengers  are  invited  to  ride  and  do 
ride  upon  this  mixed  train.  It  is  not  contended  that  appellee  is  not  abund- 
antly able  out  of  the  earnings  realized  by  it,  from  the  system  controlled  by  it, 
to  pay  the  expense  of  running  a  passenger  car  separately  from  freight  cars 
over  the  Belleville  and  Eldorado  Railroad  and  thereby  save  the  traveling 
public  from  the  increased  danger  and  inconvenience  of  taking  passage  on  a 
freight  train." 

Inasmuch  as  the  Kankakee  and  Seneca  line  is  operated  by  the  respondent 
as  a  part  of  its  system  and  its  income  from  the  system  operated  in  this  State 
is  more  than  sufficient  to  enable  it  to  pay  the  expense  of  operating  a  passen- 
ger train  on  this  branch,  without  any  appreciable  effect  upon  the  earnings 
of  the  whole  line  in  the  State  considered  as  one  system,  the  first  and  second 
contentions  of  respondent  must  be  denied. 

We  quite  agree  with  counsel  for  the  respondent  that  this  commission  has 
no  power  to  enter  an  order  in  this  case  and  to  enforce  the  same  without 
the  aid  of  the  courts.  The  statute,  however,  requires  this  commission  to 
examine  into  the  condition  and  management  and  all  other  matters  concerning 
the  business  of  railroads  in  this  State  so  far  as  the  same  pertains  to  the 
relation  of  such  roads  to  the  public  and  to  the  accommodation  and  security 
of  persons  doing  business  with  such  roads. 

We  therefore  consider  it  our  duty  when  called  upon  to  examine  into  the 
merits  of  al  complaints,  such  as  the  one  filed  in  this  case,  and  to  make 
such  recommendations  to  the  railroad  company  complained  against  as  may 
seem  to  be  just  and  reasonable  in  the  particular  case. 

We  are  of  the  opinion  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  respondent  in  this  case 
to  furnish,  run  and  operate  a  separate  passenger  train  each  way  (Sundays 
excepted)  over  its  railroad  extending  from  Kankakee,  Illinois,  to  Seneca,  Illi- 
nois; that  such  train  should  be  started  from  Kankakee  at  such  an  hour  in 
the  forenoon  as  will  enable  it  to  arrive  at  Seneca  in  time  to  make  connection 
with  the  north  bound  train  on  the  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railroad, 
and  that  returning  it  should  leave  Seneca  after  the  arrival  of  the  southbound 
train  on  said  Rock  Island  Railroad,  which  is  due  to  arrive  at  Seneca  at  3:18 
p.  m. 

We  therefore  recommend  that  the  respondent  within  thirty  days  of  the 
date  of  this  order  caused  to  be  placed  and  operated  on  this  Kankakee  and 
Seneca  branch,  in  addition  to  the  mixed  trains  now  being  operated  by  it  on 
said  line,  a  daily  passenger  train  (Sundays  excepted)  suitable  and  sufficient 
to  carry  all  passengers  with  their  necessary  baggage  in  comfort  and  security 
and  at  a  reasonable  speed;  also  that  such  arrangements  be  made  by  the 
company  as  will  relieve  train  No.  216  and  train  No.  215  from  doing  switching 
at  intermediate  stations,  so  that  passengers  going  east  in  the  morning  and 


169 

desiring  to  return  in  the  afternoon  may  have  reasonable  and  fair  accommo- 
dations on  such  trains. 
Dated  this  26th  day  of  January,  A.  D.  1908. 

W.  H.  BOYS,  Chairman. 

B.  A.  ECKHABT,  Commissioner. 

J.  A.  WlLLOUGHBY. 


Carbondale  Mill  and  Elevator  Co.,  Carbondale,  111., 

vs. 
Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. 

Complaint  of  Excessive  Switching  Charge  at  Carbondale. 

Petition  filed  November  19,  1907. 

November  29,  1907,  complaint  dismissed  at  request  of  petitioner. 


Village  of  Crainville,  111. 

vs. 
Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. 

Complaint  of  Having  no  Depot  Facilities  at  Crainville,  III. 

Petition  filed  November  28,  1907. 

December  10,  1907,  case  set  for  hearing  before  the  commission  for  date  of 
January  7,  1908. 


170 


INDEX. 


CROSSINGS. 

Illinois  Transfer  Railroad  Co.  vs.  Louisville,  Evansvllle  &  St.  Louis  Consolidated 

R.    R.    Co. — Wlnstanley    Park 3.7 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  Southwestern  R.  R.  Co.  vs.  Jacksonville  &  St.  Louis  Ry    Co — 
Shattuc , .' 7.3 

Chicago  &  Alton  Railroad  Co.  vs.  Terre  Haute  &  Indianapolis  R.  R.  Co. — Mlnier.  9-10 
Chicago  &  Alton  Railroad  Co.  vs.  Terre  Haute  &  Indianapolis  R.  R.  Co. — Atlanta  10-11 

Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  Co.  vs.  Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. — Mason  City 11-12 

Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  Co.  vs.  Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. — Lincoln 12-13 

Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  Co.  vs.  Chicago,  Peoria  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co.  of  Illinois 

— Bridge  Junction,  East  St.  Louis 14-15 

Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Ry.  Co.  vs.  Alpheus  P.  Goddard,  Alpheus  J. 

Goddard  and  The  Preeport  General  Electric  Co. — Freeport 16-19 

The  Aurora,  Elgin  &  Chicago  Ry.  Co.  vs.  The  Suburban  Railroad  Co.,  Chicago 

Terminal  Transfer  R.   R.  Co..  The  Lake  Street  Elevated  R.  R.  Co.,  and  The 

Chicago  &  Harlem  Ry.  Co. — Crossings  Nos.  1,  2  and  3,  Chicago 19-35 

Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Ry  Co.  vs.  Freeport  Railway,  Light  &  Power 

Co. — Freeport  47-52 

Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  Co.  vs.  St.  Louis  &  Springfield  Railway  Co. — Carlln- 

ville  1 53-54 

Chicago  &  Northwestern  Railway  Co.  vs.  Wisconsin  Central  Railway  Co.— 

Desplaines  55 

Southern  Railway  Co.  vs.  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Co. — North  Belleville.  56 

Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Co.  vs.  East  St.  Louis  Railway  Co. — Seventh 

Street,  East  St.  Louis,  111 67-69 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.  vs.  East  St.  Louis  &  Suburban  Ry.  Co. — French 

Village  69-72 

The  Wabash  Railroad  Co.  vs.  Bloomington,  Pontlac  &  Joliet  Electric  Ry.  Co. 

— Pontiac  72-74 

Illinois  Central  Railroad  Co.  vs.  Bloomington,  Pontiac  &  Joliet  Electric  Ry. 

Co. — Pontiac  72-74 

Danville  &  Indiana  Harbor  R.  R.  Co.  'vs.  The  Chicago  Southern  R.  R.  Co. — > 

Danville  74 

Illinois  Northern  Ry.  Co.  vs.  Chicago  &  Illinois  Western  Ry.  Co. — Corwith 75 

Macoupin  County  Railway  Co.  vs.  St.  Louis  &  Springfield  Ry.  Co. — Benld ,75 

Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  Co.  vs.  Springfield  &  St.  Louis  Railway  Co. — lies 76 

Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  Co.  vs.  Springfield  &  St.  Louis  Railroad  Co. — Carlin- 

ville  Amended  Order  ; 76-77 

Vandalia  Railroad  Co.  vs.  Chicago,  Bloomington  &  Decatur  Ry.  Co. — Maroa....  77 

Marion  &  Harrisburg  Railway  Co.  vs.  Illinois  Central  Railroad,  Chicago  & 

Eastern  Illinois  R.  R.  Co.,  and  Chicago,  Paduka  &  Memphis  R.  R.  Co. — Marion.  77 

Cleveland,  Cincinnati,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co.  vs.  St.  Louis  &  Northeastern 

Ry.  Co.— Gillespie  77 

Northern  and  Southern  Illinois  Railroad  Co.  vs.  St.  Louis,  Iron  Mountain  & 

Southern  Ry.  Co. — Herrin 78 

Illinois  Central  Railroad  Co.  vs.  St.  Louis  &  Springfield  Traction  and  St.  Louis 

&  Northeastern  Ry.  Co. — Litchfleld 78 

Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  Ry.  Co.  vs.  St.  Louis  &  Springfield  Ry.  Co.  and 

St.  Louis  &  Northeastern  Ry.  Co. — Litchfleld 79 

Cleveland,  Cincinnati,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co.  vs.  St.  Louis  &  Northeastern  „ 

Ry.  Co. — Litchfleld  ,79 

The  Rockford  Belt  Railway  Co.  vs.  The  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Co. — Rockford.  79-80 


Index — Continued. 

PAGE. 
Toledo,  St.  Louis  &  Western  Railroad  Co.  vs.  Danville,  Urbana  &  Champaign 

Ky.  Co. — Ridge  Farm 80 

Chicago  &  Eastern  Illinois  Railroad  Co.  vs.  Chicago  Heights  Street  Railway 

Co. — Chicago  Heights  80 

Illinois  Central  Railroad  Co.  vs.  Union  County  Traction  &  Power  Co. — Anna. .  .  81 
Michigan  Central  Railroad  Co.  vs.  Chicago  &  Southern  Traction  Co. — Chi- 
cago Heights  82 

Illinois  Central  Railroad  Co.  vs.  Chicago,  Bloomington  &  Decatur  Ry.  Co. — 

Clinton  82 

Chicago  &  Southern  Traction  Co.  vs.  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Co. — 157th 

Street,  Harvey  83-85 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.  vs.  St.  Louis  &  Northeastern  Ry.  Co. — 15th 

Street,  East  St.  Louis 85 

Illinois  Central  Railroad  Co.  vs.  Chicago,  Bloomington  &  Decatur  Ry.  Co. — Clin- 
ton    80 

Illinois  Central  Railroad  Co.  vs.  Aurora,  Elgin  &  Chicago  Ry.  Co. — Hillside...  86 

Illinois  Central  Railroad  Co.  vs.  Herrin  &  Carterville  Ry.  Co. — Herrin 8tt 

Michigan  Central  Railroad  Co.  vs.  Chicago  &  Southern  Traction  Co. — Chicago 

Heights  87 

Louisville  &  Nashville  RaUroad  Co.  vs.  Baltimore  &  Ohio  Southwestern  R.  R. 

Co. — Protection  of  crossing  at  Enfleld 88-89 

Venice  Terminal  Railroad  C.  vs.  Danville  &  Edwardsville  Terminal  R.  R.  Co. — 

Venice 89 

Elgin,  Joliet  &  Eastern  Railway  Co.  vs.  Chicago  &  Southern  Traction  Co. — 

Chicago  Heights 91-92 

Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  Co.  vs.  Danville  &  Edwardsvillc  Terminal  Co. — -Venice.  92 

Danville  &  Edwardsville  Terminal  Ry.  Co.  vs.  Venice  Terminal  Ry.  Co. — Venice.  93 

Hammond  Belt  Railway  Co.  vs.  South  Chicago  &  Southern  Railroad  Co. — Calumet 

Park 93 

Chicago  &  Alton  Railroad  Co.  and  Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  Railroad  Co. 

vs.    The    Jacksonville    Railway    &    Light    Co.    and    the    Illinois    Western    Ry. 

Company- — Jacksonville     93 

Chicago  &  Alton  Railroad  Co.  vs.  The  Jacksonville  Railway  &  Light  Co.  and  The 

Illinois  Western  Ry.  Co. — 2%  miles  south  of  Jacksonville 93 

South  Chicago  &  Southern  R.  R.  Co.  vs.  The  Hammond  Belt  Ry.  Co. — Calumet 

Park  94 

Chicago  &  Alton  Railroad  Co.  vs.  Springfield  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co. — West  Street, 

Carlinville  94 

Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Co.  vs.  St.  Louis  &  Northeastern  Ry.  Co. — 15tt> 

Street,  East  St.  Louis 116 

Illinois  Central  Railroad  Co.  vs.  Chicago,  Bloomington  &  Decatur  Ry.  Co. — 

Clinton  . 116 

Illinois  Central  Railroad  Co.  vs.  Aurora,  Elgin  &  Chicago  Ry.  Co. — Hillside 116 

Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  Co.  vs.  Danville  &  Edwardsville  Terminal  Ry.  Co. — 

Venice 116 

Hammond  Belt  Railway  Co.  vs.  South  Chicago  &  Southern  R.  R.  Co. — Calumet 

Park  118 

Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  Co.  and  Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  Ry.  Co.  vs. 

The  Jacksonville   Railway  &  Light  Co.   and  The  Illinois  Western   Ry.   Co. — 

Jacksonville  118 

Chicago  &  Alton  Ry.  Co.  vs.  The  Jacksonville  Railway  &  dight  Co.  and  The 

Illinois  Western  Railway  Co. — 2%  miles  south  of  Jacksonville IIS 

South  Chicago  &  Southern  R.  R.  Co.  vs.  Hammond  Belt  Ry.  Co. — Calumet  Park.  110 
Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  Co.  vs.  St.  Louis  &  Springfield  Ry.  Co. — West  Street 

Carlinville  119 

Chicago  &  Southern  Traction  Co.  vs  Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. — 157th  Street, 

Harvey . 119-120 

Michigan  Central  Railroad  Co.  vs  Chicago  &  Southern  Traction  Co. — Chicago 

Heights 120 

Elgin,  Joliet  &  Eastern  Ry.  Co.  vs.  Chicago  &  Southern  Traction  Co. — Chicago 

Heights 120 

Illinois  Central  Railroad  Co.  vs.  Coal  Belt  Electric  Railway  Co. — Herrin 120-122 

Supplemental  Order — Herrin  122-123 

Toledo,  St.  Louis  &  Western  R.  R.  Co.  vs  St.  Louis  &  Illinois  Belt  Railway  Co. — 

Edwardsville  123 

St.  Louis  &  Illinois  Belt  Ry.  Co.  vs.  Toledo,  St.  Louis  &  Western  R.  R,  Co. — 

Edwardsville    123 


172 
Index — Continued. 

Cairo  &  Thebes  Railroad  Co.  vs.  Eastern  Illinois  &  Missouri  Railroad  Co.,  Chicago 

&  Eastern  Illinois  R.  R.  Co.,  and  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Co. — Santa  Fe...l24-12T 

Springfield  Belt  Railway  Co.  vs  Chicago  &  Alton  Railroad  Co. — lies  Junction.  .127-129 

Decatur,  Sullivan  &  Mattoon  Traction  Co.  vs.  Vandalia  R.  R.  Co. — Hervey  City.  129-130 

Cairo  &  Thebes  Railroad  Co.  vs.  Southern  Illinois  &  Missouri  Bridge  Co ,  Illinois 
Central  R.  R.  Co.,  St.  Louis  Southwestern  R.  R.  Co..  St.  Louis,  Iron  Moun- 
tain &  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  and  Chicago  &  Eastern  Illinois  R.  R.  Co. — Petition 
for  track  connection  at  Thebes 137-142 

Peoria,  Lincoln  and  Springfield  Traction  Co.  vs.  Chicago  &  Alton  Ry.  Co. — Mlnier        144 

Peoria,  Lincoln  &  Springfield  Traction  Co.  vs.  Chicago  &  Alton  R.  R.  Co. — be- 
tween Minier  and  Hopedale 144-145 

Supplemental    Order    145-146 

Peoria,  Lincoln  &  Springfield  Traction  Co.  vs.  Cleveland,  Cincinnati,  Chicago  & 

St.    Louis    Ry.    Co. — Mackinaw 146-147 

Supplemental   Order    , 147 

Peoria,  Lincoln  &  Springfield  Traction  Co.  vs.  Vandalia  R.  R.  Co. — Mackinaw.  .147-148 
Supplemental   Order    148-149 

Kensington  &  Eastern  Railroad  Co.  vs.  Pittsburgh,  Ft.  Wayne  &  Chicago  Ry.  Co. 

et  al — Burnham 153-156 

The  Chicago  Southern  Ry.  Co. — Protection  of  crossings  on  the  Milford  &  Free- 
land  and  Rossville  &  Judyville  Branches  of  the  Chicago  &  Eastern  Illinois 
R.  R.  Co 157 

The  Chicago   Southern   Ry.   Co. — Protection  of  crossing  with  Toledo,   Peoria  & 

Western    Ry.    Co 157-158 

Chicago,  Wilmington  &  Vermilion  Coal  Co.  vs.  St.  Louis  &  Springfield  Ry.  Co. — 

County  Line,   Sangamon  and   Macoupiu   counties 159-160 

Joliet  &  Southern  Traction  Co.  vs.  Chicago  &  Alton  R.  R.  Co.,  Atchison,  Topeka 
&  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.,  Chicago,  Lake  Shore  &  Eastern  Ry.  Co.,  and  Elgin,  Joliet 
&  Eastern  Ry.  Co. — Joliet 160-164 

Mississippi  Valley  Electric  Ry.  Co.  vs.  The  Wabash  R.  R.  Co.,  and  the  Toledo, 

Peoria  &  Western  Ry.  Co. — Carthage  and  Elvaston 164 

COMPLAINTS. 

D.  H.  Curry  &  Co.,  Mason  City,  Illinois,  vs.  Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co.— Discrimi- 
nation in  distribution  of  cars 38-43 

C.  L.  Aygarn,  Pontiac,  vs.  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Co. — Discrimination  In  the 

distribution  of  cars 44 

C.  L.  Aygarn,  Pontiac  vs.  Wabash  Railroad  Co. — Discrimination  in  the 

distribution  of  cars 44-45 

L.  M.  Hammond  vs.  Lake  Shore  &  Michigan  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  Illinois  Central 
Railroad  Co.,  Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co.,  and  Pittsburgh,  Cincinnati,  Chicago 
&  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co. — Excessive  Switching  Charges 72 

National  Mining  Co.  vs.  Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Co. — Excessive  Switch- 
ing Charges  72 

Citizens  of  Fairfleld,  111.  vs.   Southern  Railway — Insufficient  train  service 74 

Sandoval  Coal  &  Mining  Co.  vs.  Baltimore  &  Ohio  Southwestern  R.  R.  Co. — 

Excessive  Switching  Charges  at  Sandoval 77-78 

The  Alton  Lime  &  Cement  Co.  vs.  The  Chicago,  Peoria  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co.  of 

Illinois— Overcharge  on  switching 82 

Bolivia  Farmers  Grain  Co.  vs.  Cincinnati,  Hamilton  &  Dayton  Railroad  Co. — 

Petition  for  track  connection 83 

The  Wabash  Railroad  Co.  et  al — Petition  for  modification  of  Rule  23 85 

Charles  R.  Price  Co.  vs  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Co. — Discrimination 85 

Alton  Lime  &  Cement  Co.  vs.  Chicago,  Peoria  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co.  of  Illinois,  and 
Mississippi  Valley  Coal  Co.  vs.  Chicago,  Peoria  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co.  of  Illinois 
— Excessive  Switching  Charges 86 

Geo.  W.  McCabe,  Pres.  Village  of  Chatsworth,  vs.  Toledo,  Peoria  &  Western  Ry. 

Co. — Failure  to  switch  cars 89 

The  Farmers  Elevator  Co.,  Lowder,  vs.  Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  Ry.  Co. — 

Refusal  to  furnish  cars 89 

A.  J.  Webber,  vs.  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Co. — Overcharge  for  switching  at 

Galatia  90-91 

Edwin  Beggs,  Ashland,  vs.  Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  Railroad  Co. — Exces- 
sive Minimum  Weights 92 

City  of  Staunton  vs.  The  Wabash  Railroad  Co. — Excessive  Switching  Charges..          93 

Ehlebe  Hunt  &  Co.,  Warsaw,  vs.  Toledo,  Peoria  &  Western  Ry.  Co. — Insufficient 

train  service  94 


173 

Index — Continued. 

PAGE. 
Sandoval  Coal   &  Mining  Co.   vs.   Baltimore  &  Ohio  Southwestern   R.   R.   Co. — 

Petition    for    re-hearing 94 

Illinois  Central    Railroad   Co.,   Baltimore  &  Ohio   Southwestern   R.   R.    Co.   and 

Southern  Ry.  Co. — Petition  for  modiiication  of  Rule  No.  23 94 

Same  Case  as  above    .> 119 

Preliminary   Decision  of  the  Commission 158-159 

Citizens  of  Granite  City  vs.  Chicago  &  Alton  R.   R.  Co.,  Cleveland,  Cincinnati, 
Chicago  &   St.   Louis  Ry.  Co.,  Chicago,   Peoria  &   St.   Louis   Ry.   Co.,   and   The 

Wabash  Railroad  Co. — 'Insufficient  depot  facilities  at  Granite  City 95 

Final  disposition  of  the  case 119 

Sparta  Gas  and  Electric  Co.  vs.  Illinois  Southern  Railway  Co. — Excessive  switch- 
ing charges 123. 

Chaffin  Coal  Co.  vs.   Michigan  Central  Railroad  Co.,  and  Chicago,  Rock   Island 

&  Pacific  Ry.  Co. — Excessive  switching  charges. 142 

L.  L.  Emmerson  et  al.  vs.  Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  R.  R.  Co. — Petition  for 
-  depot  and  side  track  facilities  at  Eminerson,  111 142 

W.  A.  Challacombe  vs.  Chicago,  Peoria  &  St.  Louis  Railway  Co.  of  Illinois — Com- 
plaint of  removal  of  station  and  side  tiack  at  Challacombe 142 

Johnson  Transfer  &  Fuel  Co.,  Bloomington,  vs.  Lake  Erie  &  Western  R.  R.  Co. — 

Excessive   switching  charges — 142 

Henry  I.  Green  vs.  Baltimore  &  Ohio  Southwestern  R.  R.  Co. — Excessive  charge 

on  L.  C.  L.  shipments  of  Lime  Stone  Dust 143 

Southern  Illinois  Milling  &  Elevator  Co.  vs.  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Co. — Ex- 
cessive   switching    charges 143-144 

Citizens  of  Oregon  vs.  Chicago  &  Northwestern  Ry.  Co.,  and  Chicago,  Burlington 

&  Quincy  Ry.  Co. — Petition  for  "Y"   connection  at  Rochelle 144 

Frank  M.  Annis,  Aurora,  vs.  Illinois,  Iowa  &  Minnesota  Ry.  Co. — Insufficient  pas- 
senger   train    service •. .-.-.- 144 

Michael  C.   Hayes  vs.   Chicago  &  Northwestern  Ry.   Co. — Extortion  and  unjust 

discrimination,    switching    charges 149 

Galesville  Grain  &  Coal  Co.  vs.   The  Wabash  R.  R.  Co. — Discrimination  in  dis- 
tribution  of   cars 150-152 

Village  of  Mt.  Olive  vs.  Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. — Excessive  switching  charges.  152-153 

Applegate   &   Lewis   Coal    Co.    vs.    Chicago,   Burlington   &   Quincy    Ry.   Co. — Dis- 
crimination in  the  distribution  of  cars 156 

M.   D.   Harmon   vs.   Cleveland,   Cincinnati,   Chicago  &   St.    Loius  Ry.   Co. — Depot 

facilities  at  Norris  City 157 

F.  H.  Robertson,  Essex,  vs.  Cleveland,  Cincinnati,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co. — 

Insufficient  passenger  service  on  Kankakee  &  Seneca  Branch 164-169 

Carbondale  Mill  &  Elevator  Co.  vs.  Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. — 'Excessive  switch- 
ing  charges    169 

Village  of  Crainville,  111.  vs.  Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. — No  depot  facilities 169 

MISCELLANEOUS. 

The  People   of   the   State   of   Illinois   vs.    Cleveland,    Cincinnati,    Chicago  &   St. 

Louis  Ry.  Co. — Unjust  discrimination,  long  and  short  haul 13-14 

St.   Louis  Traffic  Bureau  and  others  vs.  all  railroads  terminating  at  East   St. 

Louis,    111. — Reconsignment    of    grain 36-38 

Order  of  the  Commission  in  the  matter  of  blocking  frogs,  switches,  guard  rails, 

etc 43 

The  Shirley  Farmers  Grain  &  Coal  Co.  vs.  The  Chicago  &  Alton  Railway  Co. — 

Petition    for    track    connection    at    Shirley 45-47 

Order  of  the  Commission  in  the  matter  of  protection  of  frogs,  guard  rails,  heels 

of   switches,   etc 52-53 

Notice  of  Commission  to  Merchants  Exchange,  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  In  the  matter  of 

State  Weigh  Master  at  East  St.  Louis,  111 54-55 

Thomas  Aiken  vs.  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commission — Injunction  to  prevent 

Commission   and   its  grain   inspectors   from   grading   Pacific   Coast  Wheat   as 

Red    Winter    Wheat 74 

St.  Louis  Hay  &  Grain  Co.  vs.  Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  Ry.   Co.  et  al. — 

Reconsignment  Charge  at  East   St.   Louis 75 

St.    Louis    Hay   &   Grain   Co.   vs.    Southern   Railway    Co.   et   al. — Excessive    car 

service    charge    75 

Decree  of  the  City  Court  of  East  sV   Louis,  and  Order  of  Commission  in   the 

matter  of  tare  allowance  on  grain  received  at  East  St.   Louis 116-118 


174 

— Concluded. 

PAGE. 

Atchlson,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  vs.  Elgin,  Jollet  &  Eastern  Ry.  Co/ — 
Findings  of  Commission  acting  as  Board  of  Arbitration  in  crossing  contro- 
versy at  Coal  City,  111 131-133 

Illinois    Central    R.    R.    Co.    vs.    Pittsburgh,    Ft    Wayne    &    Chicago    Ry.    Co., 
Pennsylvania  Co.,  Lake  Shore  &  Michigan  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  New  York,  Chi- 
cago &  St.  Louis  Railroad  Co.,  and  City  of  Chicago — Separation  of  grades  at 
Grand    Crossing 133-137 

OPINIONS   OF  ATTORNEY   GENERAL. 

Opinion  of  Hon.  Rowland  J.  Hamlin  in  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Commission  over 

Railway    Crossings 1 ...      57-66 

Opinion  of  the  Hon.  W.  H.  Stead  in  relation  to  application  of  Safety  Appliance 

Act  to  Interurban   Railways 99-100 

Opinion  of  Hon.  W.  H.  Stead  in  relation  to  position  of  grab-irons  or  hand-holds.         100 
Opinion  of  Hon.   W.   H.    Stead  in  relation   to  interchange   of  business   between 

railroads   at   "Y"   connections 100-102 

Opinion  of  Hon.  W.  H.   Stead  on  jurisdiction  of  Commission  to  compel  railroad 

to    continue    depot   facilities 102 

Opinion  of  Hon.  W.  H.  Stead  In  relation  to  interchange  of  cars  at  junctions. .  .102-104 
Opinion  of  Hon.   W.    H.    Stead  in  relation   to  jurisdiction   of  Commission  over 

Express  Companies  to  prescribe  maximum  rates  of  charges 104 

Opinion  of  Hon.  W.  H.  Stead  in  relation  to  jurisdiction  of  Commission  to  com- 
pel continuance  of  side  track  facilities 105 

Opinion  of  Hon.   W.   H.   Stead  in   relation   to  jurisdiction   of   Commission   over 

demurrage    charges 105-1 07 

Opinion  of  Hon.  W.  H.  Stead  in  relation  to  jurisdiction  of  Commission  over  car 

distribution •  •  • 107-108 

APPELLATE  COURT  DECISIONS. 

In  the  case  of  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Co.  vs.  St.  Louis  &  Northeastern  Railway 

Co, — In  the  matter  of  crossing  at  Litchneld 109-115 


